M14 Forum banner

21 - 34 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
488 Posts
I haven't graduated myself to scopes yet, but I like the idea of having irons available regardless, whether by removing the scope or having enough height already.
I'd like to hear what Kurt, Ted, and Art (nf1e) think about removability as an easy option, and the different options they have on their rifles.
I've mostly looked at the ARMS18, Sadlak, Redneck Yankee, versus Basset low and high mount.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,424 Posts
I haven't graduated myself to scopes yet, but I like the idea of having irons available regardless, whether by removing the scope or having enough height already.
I'd like to hear what Kurt, Ted, and Art (nf1e) think about removability as an easy option, and the different options they have on their rifles.
I've mostly looked at the ARMS18, Sadlak, Redneck Yankee, versus Basset low and high mount.
Depending on the particular use you are setting a rifle up for, this is the way I do my personal rifles. There are so many variations of barrel lengths and configurations, I have chose the most common in my collection.

1. Hunting and general plinking. Standard M14 type rifle, standard weigh barrel in USGI wood or fiberglass stock with easily removable optics/mount and usable iron sights. Bassett or IDF mount with appropriate optics and rings.
2. Hunting and more disciplined target shooting. Standard M14 type rifle, medium weight barrel in wood or figerglass usgi stock rifle with semi-permanent optics mount with available back up sights. Sadlak, ARMS 18, and variations of optics with QD rings.
3. Traditional target use bedded standard M14 type rifle with medium or heavy weight barrel with Sadlak or ARMS type mount and optics suitable for range being shot.
4. Dedicated optics with back up iron sights. LRB M25 or Bula Defense Systems M21 DMR with top affixed rail with medium or heavy barrel. Optics and rings dependent on range.
5. Target Precision M14 type rifle with permanent mount "Bula XM21" with a heavy or ultra heavy weight barrel, appropriate optic and rings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,408 Posts
well, I wouldn't use it on that much glass
what's that thing weigh?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,424 Posts
Art, what is your opinion of the CASM mount???
Don't like the idea of having to remove the rear sight to use one. To me, they look rather fragile with the floating front end.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,424 Posts
well, I wouldn't use it on that much glass
what's that thing weigh?
Scope without rings 37.6 oz. Entire rifle with loaded mag just over 20 lbs. out to the range.
 

·
Premium Member
Token Libtard
Joined
·
298 Posts
Don't like the idea of having to remove the rear sight to use one. To me, they look rather fragile with the floating front end.
There's a rear peep on the back of the CASM, and it has 4 points of contact with the receiver instead of 3 (like a Sadlak).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,424 Posts
There's a rear peep on the back of the CASM, and it has 4 points of contact with the receiver instead of 3 (like a Sadlak).
Reminds me an awful lot of the old SK scope mounts for the mini 14. A non adjustable rear peep would be a total non-starter for me. Great concept for some, just not a real skirt blower.
The floating front with something made of aluminum just looks like an accident waiting to happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,392 Posts
There's a rear peep on the back of the CASM, and it has 4 points of contact with the receiver instead of 3 (like a Sadlak).
Not that anybody asked me, and I haven't actually tried a CASM...

While the design, as I understand it by watching the installation video, looks very stable in terms of resisting recoil that drives the rifle back, and the scope forward, the barrel end of the rifle up, and the front end of the scope down, which is what you'd expect when shooting it. So, in terms of stability regarding the force vectors of shooting itself it would theoretically be pretty darn stable, assuming the attachment to the sight ears allows no movement.

But if you look at it from the standpoint that the front points of contact can only push against the receiver, and are of zero use when pulled away from the receiver, you see that in the case that the rifle is accelerated forward, or the scope backward, or the front of the rifle down, the front of the scope up, or whatever, you can see that if you consider how torque works (force times distance), you have the rear sight ears and pocket providing ALL the torque resistance, and if you consider the leverage ratios between the distance from the sight ears and the contact points and the back of the pocket versus the end points of the scopes versus the nearest fulcrum... That could multiply a minor bump or drop into a whole lot of force on the two surfaces. With very little distance between them to counter the torque, they have to make it up with force, which means higher pressure on surfaces, and stress on supporting areas of the receiver, and mount.

Of course, I don't know the strength of the mount or receiver, and how any of that would relate in actual magnitude, and maybe it's not an issue, but it makes me take pause and wonder. It could very well be fine, but I don't know of anybody who's done drop tests.

With a Sadlak or other 'brookfield' type mount, in terms of resisting torque, you have, in terms of leverage, more than 3 points of contact. You have a line, defined by two end points, and in reality everything in between the end points of the horizontal lug, which resists torque in every direction with the exception of the roll axis. You have that held against the mating surface by a pretty beefy bolt into a pretty strong portion of the receiver that because of the cam also provides a good amount of sheer support, as well as contributing to a pretty darn dent roll resistance. The dovetail is really a secondary support mechanism that, because of the distance between it and the rest of the assembly that is taking the brunt of the responsibility (I believe you install the dove tail contact so that it is under relatively little tension at 'rest'), it doesn't take much in the way of sheer or torque itself, it's just a backup supporting position. The single front point of contact, while not as good as two front points of contact, in terms of resisting roll, doesn't really need to resist roll since that's handled by the 'single point' attachment method.

With a Basset or RNY 'single point' mount, if you think about points of actual contact, it is actually more like 3 (with many points in between) plus the bolt to make 4, as well, and both have more leverage than the M14.CA mount in directions other than that applied during recoil, of torque because pressure is induced by the mount bolt to provide pressure that translates into support by that 4th point of contact on the mount that pushes the contact into the receiver, securing lug contact in every direction by loading force and support through the mount itself.

I feel that I need to reiterate, I don't actually know that there is any real deficiency in the M14.CA mount. It seems like a pretty cool design that might light up some buttons if the arrangement lines up with preferences or needs. People who actually have them seem to have no issues. It is simply that, if I understand the design correctly (and that's an IF), it wouldn't be a mount I'd be using if there was a likely occurrence of unintended impact. If the same mount bolted down into the front of the receiver, that'd be enormously more secure, as the front position could in fact contribute to both torque and sheering resistance in every direction, and in terms of leverage, between the front and the back, would have LOT of leverage to bolster it's own integrity.

Interestingly, they make a Long Sight Plane version that combines the scope mount and the handguard into a single unified rail, and that, at least structurally speaking, from the standpoint of leverage, and contact points, would be theoretically superior, at least from a simplistic perspective of how potential impact forces could translate into stress at contact points.

While I think the single point mounts like Basset, RNY, or that cool IDF thingie art showed us are potentially far more stable (if installed correctly with a good fit) than 'single point' might imply, as they are not actually single point of contact, if I needed stability and durability of the mount under all conditions (including my own clumsiness)as the top priority, I think it's hard to argue against direct front-back connection to the receiver (ala XM-21) or a Brookfield type mount whether it's Sadlak, ARMS, or whatever, i f that is not possible.

JMO. You can redeem it at a later date for a popsicle, if you can catch up to me when I've got extra popsicles. That is, to be honest, pretty much never. :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
Does the Arms 18 mount center over the barrel? I just saw a youtube video and the guy claimed it was off center.
 
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
Top