Rifle Scopes Talk me into/out of 1.5" mount.

4O6shootist

F. J. B.
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Sep 5, 2021
3,717
3,088
USA
Have a zco 527 coming, need a mount. Going on a LPA fuzion with comp contour barrel, manners mcs chassis. Running everything in 1.25" mounts up to date. Pondering going to 1.50 for more vertical head alignment for positional shooting. Probably going to be an ARC M-brace, with an additional 10 or 20moa in the mount. Guys who are running 1.50 have you found advantage or disadvantages of them?
 
I run an ARC Mbrace at that height. I'm plenty happy with it. It allows all my ear pro to clear if I shoot without a can and seems to feel more comfortable.
20220305_163633.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: camocorvette
Thanks for the suggestions and input fellas, gonna run a 1.50 mount and see how it works. Due to my wide cheek bones, I've always used more of a low cheek height and a jaw weld to keep the rifle as center line on my clavicle. The TCS cheek hardware lets me adjust the left to right of the cheek, which works wonders, but really screws you if there is a weak side stage.
 
My rifles going to look like an ELR setup with the gap between the barreling scope if I go 1.5 lol
That's kinda what I thought, but you se3 the guys shooting positional with there hand up on scope to steady the rifle, i could now just put it between scope and barrel to steady rifle lol
 
That's kinda what I thought, but you se3 the guys shooting positional with there hand up on scope to steady the rifle, i could now just put it between scope and barrel to steady rifle lol
Definitely don't touch the barrel though lol. I'm also going to feel like an asshole putting a Burris XTRII in a Sphur, good scope but not what you normally see in one
 
I have no experience with them or any knowledge of them but I wouldn't trust any adjustable rings like that. No way.
I've use the Signature Rings for years. Many on heavy recoiling rifles, up to and including the .338-378 Weatherby Magnum. And they have never moved or shifted zero. They not only hold better, they will never scratch or mar a scope tube.
 
Don't sell Burris short. They make good scopes. And their XTR Tactical Signature Rings, with the Polymer inserts are some of the best on the market.

uYEhBfh.jpg


yWVfCja.jpg


L56GCCY.jpg
I’m not saying it’s junk, but it’s not a ZCO either and I have the signature rings. I’m going to feel weird putting a scope that’s not expensive in a higher end mount..
 
Thinking the same about a ZCO block mount. But I have concerns about my cheek adjustment not being enough on my foundation.
This was the other reason I went to the 1.5" 20moa mount on this Cadex chassis. When I had a 1.3" ish height mount on it I had to bottom out my cheek riser adjustment. Now I don't have to smoosh my face down on it 😂
 
It all depends on the relationship of your cheek bone (assuming you actually mount on your cheek bone) and your eye.

I'm not at all sure how anybody else could advise you on this.

I've always needed a high comb on shotguns and its no surprise that even with low Mk 4 rings (or ARC on another gun) I still had to have extended posts on the KMW Loggerhead or on the other gun cranking the comb on my JAE chassis about as high as it can get.

But yes, I do have those beautiful, fashion model, high cheekbones that make other men jealous! haha jk...I'm an old wreck. LOL
 
In my opinion the only thing that matters in regards to rifle setup, whether your talking scope position, LOP, or any other aspect is that any change you make is done to make the rifle fit you in your primary shooting position. Don’t get sucked into the trap of blindly following trends, but definitely pay attention to them as everything evolves. The correct scope height is what works best for you.

Specifically on the topic of mount / ring height the whole goal is to have a relaxed & neutral head position that is very repeatable when your eye is perfectly centered in the scope. Relaxed, neutral, & repeatable is the key for everything when talking about precision shooting (obvious statement I know…). I see a lot of stocks that have an adjustable cheek piece but they are only being halfway utilized. If yours is adjustable on both the X and Y axis then by all means use the X axis (horizontal adjustment) in addition to the Y (vertical adjustment).

I know this post is full of obvious statements, but I see so many people who shoot with their heads rolled over. This is not only requiring muscle activation (not relaxed), it is most definitely not neutral (in less your Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man), it is very difficult to be repeatable, but most of all it throws off your equilibrium. This can obviously make you less stable, but it can also induce a cant in the rifle that you may not notice if you do not use a level of some sort.

I did not mean to get on such a side track when the OP probably wasn’t meaning to go down this path, but it is a problem I see often and I think it is applicable to this topic. These are just my observations and opinions.
 
Y’all must have big faces. I ran out of cheek piece height adjustment before I could get comfortable behind a 1.5” mount on a Manners or Foundation.
Most of the Manners and all of the Foundations use KMW hardware in their adjustable combs.

You can gain over a half inch extra height adjustment for around $20.00 and your own 2 minute install time.

.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baron23
Most of the Manners and all of the Foundations use KMW hardware in their adjustable combs.

You can gain over a half inch extra height adjustment for around $20.00 and your own 2 minute install time.

.
I have a set in the parts box actually, but found myself more comfortable with a lower mount. Might try the higher thing again, but probably won’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terry Cross
That's a much better choice than doing it the other way around.
True, I will say I’ve had zero problems with the XTR signatures and they leave zero ring marks and shouldn’t be able to put torque on the scope tube, but the single piece mounts are real nice. Eventually(hopefully) one day I’ll upgrade to a Razor or XTR3 (when they are ancient tech probably).
 
This is a 1.5" (I'm pretty sure, anyway) mount (from Leupold) and I needed it really to clear the NV bridge thing although I can probably get away with a 1.25"... but I paid like half MSRP off ebay for the mount so, whatever. In practice, with the chassis adjustments I was more comfortable prone than I ever have been on much lower mounted scope rifles that I have. Evidently I have a tall head?


impactright1.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: akmike47
This is a 1.5" (I'm pretty sure, anyway) mount (from Leupold) and I needed it really to clear the NV bridge thing although I can probably get away with a 1.25"... but I paid like half MSRP off ebay for the mount so, whatever. In practice, with the chassis adjustments I was more comfortable prone than I ever have been on much lower mounted scope rifles that I have. Evidently I have a tall head?


View attachment 7858055
If looks matter the nv bridge definitely makes a difference. I wish there was a longer bridge/mirage shield for the ACC like that. More so if it could still be used with all the weights if you wanted, just use long screws for the mlok and sandwich it between them and the chassis or something.
 
I’m also a convert to 1.5in rings on both me (6’3) and my wife’s (5’8). She has no issue with the height but I did put a anarchy outdoor pad on top of her cheek rest on her foundation stock.

I still have a set of MDT 1.25 that I will sell this spring for another ARC M-Brace.

I also went with the Burris XTR bushing rings on my RimX for my 30mm Athlon Midas 6-24 and it allows me to get all the elevation available (removed the zero stop and I set up the bushing so that when I’m zero, I can still have 1.0 mil below zero available and then the full 25 mils of elevation so that I can reach 450 in almost all weather conditions). They’re a huge PITA to set up but once it’s done I think they’re a great piece of kit especially at 99$