M14 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Scout Squad AA9126
Joined
·
604 Posts
Given that the most experience I've had with a magnified optic is the Tasco 4×20 on my Crosman .177 Pumpmaster 760 back in the 70's, my opinion in this matter is worth its weight in... cryptocurrency.

What appears to me to be a catch-22 is how the narrowest part of the optic in the photo above sits directly over the action, yet that's also the thickest part of the mount. Seeing as how keeping the area above/around the action unobstructed should be important for both reliable function and to allow for top-loading, wouldn't it make sense to locate both the narrowest part of the optic and the thinnest part of the mount directly above the action?

It just seems, from my uneducated perspective, that there'd be some kind of mounting solution that allowed the rings to be secured from somewhere other than below the optic... from the side, maybe? One would think there's a way to take advantage of hardpoints on other areas of the receiver in order to secure rings in a "cantilever" configuration that would put the least amount of physical obstruction directly above the action.

Don't claim to know, just thinking out loud...
 

·
Forum Jester
Joined
·
8,206 Posts
does the scope come with a truss?
 
  • Like
Reactions: XM25Ren

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,439 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Given that the most experience I've had with a magnified optic is the Tasco 4×20 on my Crosman .177 Pumpmaster 760 back in the 70's, my opinion in this matter is worth its weight in... cryptocurrency.

What appears to me to be a catch-22 is how the narrowest part of the optic in the photo above sits directly over the action, yet that's also the thickest part of the mount. Seeing as how keeping the area above/around the action unobstructed should be important for both reliable function and to allow for top-loading, wouldn't it make sense to locate both the narrowest part of the optic and the thinnest part of the mount directly above the action?

It just seems, from my uneducated perspective, that there'd be some kind of mounting solution that allowed the rings to be secured from somewhere other than below the optic... from the side, maybe? One would think there's a way to take advantage of hardpoints on other areas of the receiver in order to secure rings in a "cantilever" configuration that would put the least amount of physical obstruction directly above the action.

Don't claim to know, just thinking out loud...
Just happens to be the way Leatherwood designed his original ART and the Chinese have carried it forward.
Function has been 100% on other rifles I have used the M-1200 on.
These were never designed to be used in conjunction with top loading. Mags are loaded separately from the rifle using a spoon and charger clips or individually as most do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Seeing as how keeping the area above/around the action unobstructed should be important for both reliable function and to allow for top-loading, wouldn't it make sense to locate both the narrowest part of the optic and the thinnest part of the mount directly above the action?

It just seems, from my uneducated perspective, that there'd be some kind of mounting solution that allowed the rings to be secured from somewhere other than below the optic... from the side, maybe? One would think there's a way to take advantage of hardpoints on other areas of the receiver in order to secure rings in a "cantilever" configuration that would put the least amount of physical obstruction directly above the action.
Most scope mounts are going to cover the action, even the side receiver-mounted ones (the only two that come to mind that don't do this are the Sage one that has a Picatinny section in the clip guide and uses the Sage handguard for the front rings, and the SAI side mount that has a section missing above the receiver). Top-loading isn't that much of a concern either because of the detachable magazines, and even with the side scope mount on my M1A there's enough room to reach in, clear obstructions or even single-load rounds into the magazine from the top.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,439 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Is that the newest version? I think I have an older m-1200 mine doesn’t have illumination or side parallax adjustment.
Bought it within the last two years. I usually ask for all the bells and whistles when I purchase an item.
Hi Lux has been great as far as replacing items that don't function to satisfaction. They have done a direct swap on a couple of M40 repros that I had some trouble with.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,439 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
If you are looking for a mount that has the rings sideways, check out Rednecked Yankie's mount. It is low over reciever and you can still use irons.
Nope, didn't know he was even still around. Got lots of mounting solutions, but for this scope the ART is the ticket.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,937 Posts
Nope, didn't know he was even still around. Got lots of mounting solutions, but for this scope the ART is the ticket.
I love his mount, in particular the modified one he sent me, but I totally understand why a lot of people don't want to mess with bedding lugs for a rifle, or rely on bedding at all. I think that commercially, if he were to make an actual go of it, and wasn't tied up in his day job, which as of last conversation was kind of exploding, if he offered a version that used the same 'V block' method as the Basset, he could get a lot of people to get off the fence about it. Bedding isn't rocket science, but it is a tedious step for some, and a layer of uncertainty.

In your case, and watching your builds, each is kind of a love affair, a mix of whim and sensibilities. If it's not right for the moment, it's not right, and I get the feeling that for you, for this rifle, the ART is the prom date.

I love watching what you choose to put together. I think i'm done buying stuff for awhile, but it's still nice to have you try things out first. :p
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top