Rings and M1a Review

[DC1861]

I have a Millett 6x25x56 on my M1A. It has a 35mm tube. The rings are incredibly to high. I have since put a kydex adjustable cheek rest on it but to no avail.

I can not rest my cheek on the rifle with my eyes closed to open them and see clearly through the scope.

Any one have some suggestions on good low rings and where I may find them?

And also any other tips for the M1A would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[lennyo3034]

Re: Rings and M1a Review

double post

 

[lennyo3034]

Re: Rings and M1a Review

Get a smaller scope. That thing is huge. 35mm tubes also don't lend much to low mounting options. This is especially complicated with your higher rail. An ARMs or bassett low might help, but it will still be ridiculously high with that scope.

 

[bricktop]

Re: Rings and M1a Review

I have to admit that those pics are somewhat comical. You could probably drop at least half an inch with some TPS super-lows.

http://www.midwayusa.com/Product/858310/tps-35mm-tsr-w-sl-weaver-style-steel-rings-matte-super-low

 

[DC1861]

Re: Rings and M1a Review

How does this look?

 

[Badshot308]

Re: Rings and M1a Review

Get rid of that Springfield Armory mount and get an A.R.M.S. or a Sadlak mount http://www.sadlak.com/si_improvements_to_bpt.html The A.R.M.S. mount is about the lowest of decent mounts, and with the scope removed, you actually look over the mount and not through it. While that appears to be a fourth generation mount, I had one of the third generation Springfield mounts back before the 94 AWB, and it did nothing but loosen up constantly. I put some Loctite on the threads, then the forward thumb screw snapped off in the receiver. Piece of junk... Once you get a better mount, take the rifle and scope to a shop with a good selection of rings and see what height will get you as low as possible.

 

[unrepentant]

Re: Rings and M1a Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Badshot308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Get rid of that Springfield Armory mount and get an A.R.M.S. or a Sadlak </div></div>

Dead nuts on. ARMS are much more sturdy and hold a better zero. Sadlak ain't no slouch at it either. SA would be my absolute last choice for an M1A mount.

 

[DC1861]

Re: Rings and M1a Review

So the Springfield mount is to high and I should go with an ARMS mount?

I am taking the much bigger Millett off and will probably put a Leupold Mark 4 tactical in its place. Is the ARMS mount the best bet? What else am I missing?

 

[rrflyer]

Re: Rings and M1a Review

Lower rings!

 

[08Cayenne]

Re: Rings and M1a Review

This is Sadlak titanium mount and NF 1.123" rings, has a 56mm bell and can still use the irons. Could probably have used the 1.00". I only have to slightly raise the cheek rest, lower than in the picture.

 

[unrepentant]

Re: Rings and M1a Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DC1861</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So the Springfield mount is to high and I should go with an ARMS mount?

I am taking the much bigger Millett off and will probably put a Leupold Mark 4 tactical in its place. Is the ARMS mount the best bet? What else am I missing? </div></div>

I doubt the SA mount is too high--but I'd recommend a Sadlak or ARMS because they're "proven" quality mounts. ARMS rings come in various heights, and the throw-lever rings offer great repeat-zero capability. You can use them instead w/ the SA mount if you have to.