New M-BRACE Scope Mount $279 from American Rifle Company

[TheOE800]

NTCH and you are probably hosed on most scopes.

We aren’t teaching NTCH anymore though are we?

 

[rothgyr]

I really love the scope level on this mount. It's not sticking way out there, blocking my view of my dope card or left eye target acquisition, but it's still easy to see (unlike my Spuhr). 8 different mounting options for it is nice too.

I really appreciate the cantilever setup. Getting my USO FDN back far enough with a Spuhr was pain.

Great design, Ted.

And a shoutout to ARC's customer service. I ordered 30mm rings by accident and they took care of an exchange with no hassle.

 

[Randall3rd]

Went with the 1.5” M Brace, all good here! Really like the bubble options.

 

[karagias]

View attachment 7730632

I really love the scope level on this mount. It's not sticking way out there, blocking my view of my dope card or left eye target acquisition, but it's still easy to see (unlike my Spuhr). 8 different mounting options for it is nice too.

I really appreciate the cantilever setup. Getting my USO FDN back far enough with a Spuhr was pain.

Great design, Ted.

And a shoutout to ARC's customer service. I ordered 30mm rings by accident and they took care of an exchange with no hassle.

Thanks. I'm glad you like it. I'm also glad to hear that you like the level vial. As you can see, we didn't integrate it into the mount like we did on our previous QD-L design or like Spuhr and others currently do. Level vials located under the scope serve only to sell mounts, which is important for the manufacturer but it doesn't do the customer any good.

We didn't want to give people a reason not to buy the M-BRACE so a level was necessary for that reason alone. But I am happy that we came up with a level design that is actually useful for the shooter and not just for selling mounts.

That said, the serrated interface is the coolest new feature on the M-BRACE. As far as I know, it's the only system available that properly handles the large forces resulting from recoil and LRF attachments. Oh, and the scope doesn't roll in the rings during installation. Just say'in.

At this point, it ought to be obvious that the M-BRACE is clearly the best in the industry. And at $279, well that's a no brainer.

Thanks for the business. As always, it's greatly appreciated.

Ted

 

[Desert_Racer]

Ted, when will we see an RMR attachment option available?

 

[karagias]

Ted, when will we see an RMR attachment option available?

Soon. It's on the short list. ACI and HUD adapter is also coming.

 

[ACard]

Ordered one for my ZCO today...excited to see it

 

[CMP70306]

I have mine on order, just waiting for the shipping notice. Plan on putting a Revic in it with the SilencerCo Radius on top, the total optics package is going to weigh 5 pounds so it definitely won’t be for any ultra light rifles.

 

[Bmwe36as]

What other plans might there be for the serated attachment points? Dope card holder? Timer holder?

 

[littlepod]

@karagias

Very excited for the mount. There's this thread here to get a dope card holder that we'll prototype out and get it finalized for those interested: https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...puhr-and-pic-rail.7047165/page-2#post-9812752

My next reach out was to talk to LRI to get a 90 degree mount for the send-it MV3. Yes you can do a pic rail and the standard mount, but that just adds a lot of bulk and makes it look unseenly, so getting just a nice 90 degree MV3 mount directly connected to the m-brace would be fantastic.

Is that something you guys could easily cad, or should I work with LRI to try to get it built up?

Given your machining, will other heights eventually be orderable? Say 30mm to 38mm in 2mm increments. 1.5" seems to generally be too high on some of my rigs where the cheek isn't rising high enough, and 1.25" too low to clear some of my enclosed fore-ends (AI-ATX)

 

[NiteQwill]

@karagias

Excited to try the new mount. If this all holds well... I may do a complete replacement of all my mounts. Just waiting for the rds, HUD and send it mounts.

 

[Sandrail5300]

Great solid platform. I switched over to the M-Brace recently and I gotta say I really like it.

 

[ArmchairOperator]

You had to ask for a QD version, didn't you? Would you settle for a T-handle wrench on a lanyard? Just kidding.

QD is kind of a bitch on a Pic rail. The only two QD methods that I like are thumb screws, like we did with the QD-L, and the levers from American Defense and I think those guys sell to other OEMs. Nevertheless, for a bolt action rifle having potentially very heavy recoil, I really prefer screws. Screws just work every time and you would never be able to match their clamping forces with a lever that would fit on a scope mount. We've considered QD. Give us a PO for a few hundred of them and I'll do it

As far as the price goes, well it's good. Really good. Capitalism 101, better product, lower price, higher volume, more income for ARC and dealers.

And it is a better product. It's actually the best scope mount available, especially if you intend to use and the LRF mount for a laser range finder or anything else that must stay aligned to the scope. Supporting an LRF to Pic rail cantilevered from a scope ring cap or from just one side of the mount now seems foolish when one can now see how to do this correctly via the M-BRACE's serrated interface. The engineers in the audience will appreciate the serrations ability to carry moments. And if they don't they should seek a new line of work. Serrations have been used for ages in all sorts of machines that required bomb-proof mechanical joints. I was aware of Hirth couplings and serrated work-holding devices so it was an easy choice. In the case of the M-BRACE, the serration carry the moments while the conical (flat) head screws pre-load the joints and provides an excellent radial constraint. We considered serrations emanating radially from the screw hole but that would have made assembly and disassembly rather cumbersome. As designed, one can simply remove two screws and lift the LRF and it's mount from the M-BRACE without affecting the scope in the rings. Additionally, the scope clamp screws remain accessible even when the LRF mount is in place. This might be helpful if one wishes to adjust the role (cant) of the scope within the rings with removing the LRF.

All that said, I know that most folks outside of the military do not own weapon mounted laser range finders but the LRF mount is nevertheless useful for anything else you might want to do. It actually provides excellent cover for the scope providing protection against a collision with a barricade. And it is obviously good for mounting levels like the send it or data cards, or both. In fact, I promised the folks at Kestrel that we would make an serrated interface for their HUD. That's coming soon.

The M-BRACE is currently as good as mounts get. It doesn't have the toy-ish-ness of other mounts that are made from 6061 or the obviously inferior accessory connections that cannot resist recoil forces as the serrations can. And when combined with the super easy roll-free scope installation of our M10 Scope Ring design, and, oh yeah, the $279 price, well then it's a no brainer. Just buy it. Happiness is included at no extra charge.

Ted

I always wanted to see M10 rings paired with a Bobro QD…

 

[Scrumbag]

Now that looks a very good piece of kit!

 

[huntnh]

Anybody have these instock looking for 34mm 20moa in the lower height 35mm I believe shows out of stock on there site

 

[b6graham]

Anybody have these instock looking for 34mm 20moa in the lower height 35mm I believe shows out of stock on there site

they show in stock

34mm tube
20moa
32mm/1.26" height

 

[karagias]

FYI,

We just introduced M-BRACE Scope Rings. New look...

NEW M-BRACE Scope Rings from American Rifle Company

Greetings snipers and other liberty-loving Earthly inhabitants, American Rifle Company has given our beloved M10 Scope Rings a new look and a new designation for the 2020s and beyond. Hence forth, they will be dubbed M-BRACE Scope Rings which ought not to come as a surprise considering the...

www.snipershide.com

Ted

 

[EN2722]

Now that it’s been a couple months, any updates to the HUD, SendIt level, etc. mounting bracket options?

 

[Mjnelson]

I like, maybe I can talk you guys into doing some in the 1.1 hight range…

 

[karagias]

Now that it’s been a couple months, any updates to the HUD, SendIt level, etc. mounting bracket options?

They're on the list. Just need to get through the list. Mule deer hunting in Montana is also on the list, and that getting done this week.

Ted

 

[karagias]

I like, maybe I can talk you guys into doing some in the 1.1 hight range…

Why are you interested in 1.1" height? Just curious.

Ted

 

[Mjnelson]

Why are you interested in 1.1" height? Just curious.

Ted

Nothing more than personal preference. That’s where 56mm bells will clear my heavy barrels with just enough room for flip caps. I know people are going high these days, but I like keeping it low. I think it helps with the balance of my gun keeping the CG low.

 

[Scrumbag]

Nothing more than personal preference. That’s where 56mm bells will clear my heavy barrels with just enough room for flip caps. I know people are going high these days, but I like keeping it low. I think it helps with the balance of my gun keeping the CG low.

I'd be on board with this.

Scrummy

 

[karagias]

Nothing more than personal preference. That’s where 56mm bells will clear my heavy barrels with just enough room for flip caps. I know people are going high these days, but I like keeping it low. I think it helps with the balance of my gun keeping the CG low.

Thanks for the reply. I understand personal preference. That's simple enough. But a low CG, no so much.

First, a 1.1" (28mm) height precludes the use of serrations, at least those of the same size that are currently being used on the M-BRACE. That would obviously reduce the capacity for the serrated interface to carry a moment load.

Secondly, a 1.1" height would require that the top surface of the bridge connecting the two rings be lower in order to maintain clearance for the scope's turret bulge. Reducing the current 7mm thickness of the bridge, as measured up from the top of the rail, by 4mm resulting would result in a huge reduction in bending strength and stiffness. And that's bad because we want both strength and stiffness to resist moment loads resulting from LRF use. Remember, the one important requirement for the M-BRACE is that it can correctly and effectively support an LRF.

But now I'll get to what for me is the most vexing part of this, that being your preference for a low mounted scope is based on an irrational belief that there is something good about a low CG. My intension here is to illuminate, not humiliate, so forgive me if these seems even remotely belligerent.

The position of the scope on the rifle will effect the following properties of the scoped-rifle system: mass, location of the center of mass, and the mass moment of inertia taken about three axes, those being roll, pitch, and yaw, Ir, Ip, and Iy respectively. Increasing the scope height increases Ir, and to a lesser degree, Ip and Iy and therefore reduces the extent to which the rifle will be thrown off target by recoil. Moreover, since rifles are generally more massive than scopes, the center of mass of a scoped-rifle tends to be below the axis of the bore. Raising the scope will move the center of mass closer to the bore axis thus reducing the upwards pitching of the muzzle (colloquially, muzzle flip) during recoil. Ideally, we'd like the center of mass to be on the bore axis so that the recoil force passes directly through it, in which case the rifle will recoil straight back, without pitching upwards. But even if the center of mass is perfectly located on the bore axis, some pitching, rolling, and yawing would still occur because of the forces needed to spin the bullet as it accelerates down the barrel. One experiences this when launching heavy bullets from lighter weight rifles, think Sako TRG 338LM.

To the engineers reading this, I know what you're thinking. "Come on Ted, how much does raising the scope really change the mass moments and how the rifles feels when firing it?" Answer: not much at all. But if we're going to address scope height, let's do it with physics. And doing it that way, we find that raising the scope does work to tame recoil, even if just a little bit.

There are more practical benefits resulting for raising the scope. Two that come to mind immediately are increased clearance between your thumb and the ocular bell of the scope which is important when cycling the bolt, and increased point-blank-range. Also, the shooter's comfort is likely the most important benefit and more than a couple of shooters have indicated as much when purchasing rings from us.

The desire for a low mounted scope is a vestige of an age when hunting rifles had iron sights and stocks with low combs well suited for aligning the eye with said sights. Then folks started mounting scopes to these rifles only to learn that they could never get the scope low enough for a good cheek weld. So everyone wanted a low set of rings. But those days have long since passed and today's precision rifles all have adjustable cheek pieces and for good reason. Thus, the myth of the low-mounted scope needs to be expunged from human memory.

I hope this helps.

Ted

 

[gnochi]

Thanks for the reply. I understand personal preference. That's simple enough. But a low CG, no so much.

First, a 1.1" (28mm) height precludes the use of serrations, at least those of the same size that are currently being used on the M-BRACE. That would obviously reduce the capacity for the serrated interface to carry a moment load.

Secondly, a 1.1" height would require that the top surface of the bridge connecting the two rings be lower in order to maintain clearance for the scope's turret bulge. Reducing the current 7mm thickness of the bridge, as measured up from the top of the rail, by 4mm resulting would result in a huge reduction in bending strength and stiffness. And that's bad because we want both strength and stiffness to resist moment loads resulting from LRF use. Remember, the one important requirement for the M-BRACE is that it can correctly and effectively support an LRF.

But now I'll get to what for me is the most vexing part of this, that being your preference for a low mounted scope is based on an irrational belief that there is something good about a low CG. My intension here is to illuminate, not humiliate, so forgive me if these seems even remotely belligerent.

The position of the scope on the rifle will effect the following properties of the scoped-rifle system: mass, location of the center of mass, and the mass moment of inertia taken about three axes, those being roll, pitch, and yaw, Ir, Ip, and Iy respectively. Increasing the scope height increases Ir, and to a lesser degree, Ip and Iy and therefore reduces the extent to which the rifle will be thrown off target by recoil. Moreover, since rifles are generally more massive than scopes, the center of mass of a scoped-rifle tends to be below the axis of the bore. Raising the scope will move the center of mass closer to the bore axis thus reducing the upwards pitching of the muzzle (colloquially, muzzle flip) during recoil. Ideally, we'd like the center of mass to be on the bore axis so that the recoil force passes directly through it, in which case the rifle will recoil straight back, without pitching upwards. But even if the center of mass is perfectly located on the bore axis, some pitching, rolling, and yawing would still occur because of the forces needed to spin the bullet as it accelerates down the barrel. One experiences this when launching heavy bullets from lighter weight rifles, think Sako TRG 338LM.

To the engineers reading this, I know what you're thinking. "Come on Ted, how much does raising the scope really change the mass moments and how the rifles feels when firing it?" Answer: not much at all. But if we're going to address scope height, let's do it with physics. And doing it that way, we find that raising the scope does work to tame recoil, even if just a little bit.

There are more practical benefits resulting for raising the scope. Two that come to mind immediately are increased clearance between your thumb and the ocular bell of the scope which is important when cycling the bolt, and increased point-blank-range. Also, the shooter's comfort is likely the most important benefit and more than a couple of shooters have indicated as much when purchasing rings from us.

The desire for a low mounted scope is a vestige of an age when hunting rifles had iron sights and stocks with low combs well suited for aligning the eye with said sights. Then folks started mounting scopes to these rifles only to learn that they could never get the scope low enough for a good cheek weld. So everyone wanted a low set of rings. But those days have long since passed and today's precision rifles all have adjustable cheek pieces and for good reason. Thus, the myth of the low-mounted scope needs to be expunged from human memory.

I hope this helps.

Ted

Yes, and…

I have really high cheek bones, and my cheek welds pretty universally require maxing out the cheek travel. In a Xylo I can barely use a 1.5” mount height and get a solid weld.

 

[karagias]

Yes, and…

I have really high cheek bones, and my cheek welds pretty universally require maxing out the cheek travel. In a Xylo I can barely use a 1.5” mount height and get a solid weld.

Have you thought about a career as a model?

Ted

 

[gnochi]

Have you thought about a career as a model?

Ted

Haha literally nobody wants to see that

 

[SniperBro]

I have mine on order, just waiting for the shipping notice. Plan on putting a Revic in it with the SilencerCo Radius on top, the total optics package is going to weigh 5 pounds so it definitely won’t be for any ultra light rifles.

I wouldn't mind seeing a longer LRF mount. I love the look and design, don't get me wrong. But...I have a ZCO 4-20 in mine with the SilencerCo Radius on top. My only complaint is the short rail space (only 5 i believe). I don't have enough room to comfortably spin my elevation turret. That is with the Radius as far forward as possible, and only clamping on part of the rail. I did solve this problem somewhat by clamping a riser mount on the LRF mount and putting the radius on top of that. A little unnecessary, and the Radius is higher yet from the scope, but gives you the room you need to use your turrets. You can get by without the riser it if you don't need to use your turrets quickly or efficiently.

 

[beetroot]

This thing looks very slick, love the bubble level attachment/versatility.

Your website says you can ship to Australia and Canada, what about New Zealand?
Or can you recomend a reatiler who can ship your mount/rings to NZ?

 

[karagias]

This thing looks very slick, love the bubble level attachment/versatility.

Your website says you can ship to Australia and Canada, what about New Zealand?
Or can you recomend a reatiler who can ship your mount/rings to NZ?

New Zealand is no problem. I just edited that portion of the website to reflect as much. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Ted

 

[karagias]

I wouldn't mind seeing a longer LRF mount. I love the look and design, don't get me wrong. But...I have a ZCO 4-20 in mine with the SilencerCo Radius on top. My only complaint is the short rail space (only 5 i believe). I don't have enough room to comfortably spin my elevation turret. That is with the Radius as far forward as possible, and only clamping on part of the rail. I did solve this problem somewhat by clamping a riser mount on the LRF mount and putting the radius on top of that. A little unnecessary, and the Radius is higher yet from the scope, but gives you the room you need to use your turrets. You can get by without the riser it if you don't need to use your turrets quickly or efficiently.

Any chance you can send us a picture of the Radius on the LRF without the riser? We need to be careful of an interference between the forward most portion of the LFR mount and the objective bell of some scopes. Maybe this warrants a longer variant.

Ted

 

[627guy]

This is super amazing, makes me wanna break my wallet. if i later break my wallet for this, i wouldn't be able to wait to mount it

 

[BLKWLFK9]

If ordering the mount with the intention of running a red dot on top for target acquisition, should i wait on buying the pic rail bridge??

 

[SniperBro]

Any chance you can send us a picture of the Radius on the LRF without the riser? We need to be careful of an interference between the forward most portion of the LFR mount and the objective bell of some scopes. Maybe this warrants a longer variant.

Ted

Ted, I sent you some pics. I hope they help. Let me know if you physically want my Radius to help with the design process.

-Evan

 

[ShootnFool8]

Got to say impressed with mount. Received mine today, NICE! Feels like a tank, but not to heavy. Now just need to mount my ZC.

 

[Solo 43]

I got mine this week....awaiting my scope. I really luv the design of the rings. Kudo's to you guys for designing it in this fashion. Makes TOTAL sense.

 

[dgage]

Just received my ARC M-Brace today and as others have said, it feels well built and solid. The primary reason I chose this over other mounts was the larger single screws that could be torqued more than 2 or even 3 small screws. I have to wait until Christmas until I can put my rifle together but the M-Brace and Vortex Razor Gen 2 will make a great combo.

 

[BLKWLFK9]

Wish it was part of the black Friday sale. I'll be getting one for Xmas and whenever the red dot bridge comes available, I'll be grabbing one of them too

 

[Feniks Technologies]

M-Brace on our Aspis Rifle.

 

[StrayDog]

Is there a piece removed from the XLR elliptical mag release? Curious--I have an early version on my Envy Pro.
Excellent set up there.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Is there a piece removed from the XLR elliptical mag release? Curious--I have an early version on my Envy Pro.
Excellent set up there.

I need to educate myself on it. It’s something to do with not being able to accidentally hit the Mag release.

I use an envy pro with my ruckus for PRS and it’s not there either.

 

[Esumter]

I just finished mounting and sighting in my new ARC M-Brace mount. I'm a huge fan!!!

 

[karagias]

Ted, I sent you some pics. I hope they help. Let me know if you physically want my Radius to help with the design process.

-Evan

I public thank you goes out to SniperBro for some helpful pics. Customer feedback such as that is greatly appreciated and continues to be an important ingredient in all of our products. Thanks again SniperBro and to all of those posting here.

Ted

 

[st1650]

Grabbed one. If it works as good as I think it will, I’ll move to all M-BRACE on my bolt guns.

I have a Sphur QDP and I have experienced some rare zero shift and ultimately I’m not sure 100% that I can trust it.

 

[st1650]

Yes, and…

I have really high cheek bones, and my cheek welds pretty universally require maxing out the cheek travel. In a Xylo I can barely use a 1.5” mount height and get a solid weld.

That’s so weird I’m like the opposite. I need to run a 1.5” and run the cheek piece quite low. I couldn’t make 1.25” high rings work.

 

[just browsing]

Any opportunity for an ‘extended’ mount, or further distance in between rings to mitigate potential for turret binding? It would also allow more flexible mounting positions for those of us with larger bulges…

Just wondering if it would be feasible without completely changing mounting geometry or design.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

….allow more flexible mounting positions for those of us with larger bulges…

Giggity

 

[TxAg93]

I just finished mounting and sighting in my new ARC M-Brace mount. I'm a huge fan!!!

Which height mount did you go with?

 

[Esumter]

Which height mount did you go with?

1.26", 20 moa.

 

[roostercogburn98]

I might need one of these