Recommend cantilever Scope Mount, please

[YZ-80]

Guys,

Apparently I didn't get the memo on "Buy once, Cry once" and cheaped out on my rings for this set up. I've been chasing groups around for a month, only to make the realization last evening that the base picatinny thumb

screws (Which had been torqued to spec with medium loctite) had worked themselves loose. These RRA straight rings have worked fine on my 5.56 rifles but not so much on the 6.5. Anyway, can somebody recommend a good cantilever mount with a more robust mounting system, say in the $150 range? The 30mm tube on the scope spans 5.4" and the current ring center is 3.0" off the center of the bore. I'd like this to be a bit lower but don't want to hamper being able to grab the charging handle. Thanks!

 

[ARlife4me]

I use Aero Precision, Burris and Warne with some being QR mounts. Prices between 90-230 $. I could spend more, but no need to!

 

[Darryle]

I quit the cantilever style mounts. I have been using the BCM optic riser since I can quickly swap a known good scope or a higher magnification scope for load development/verification.

BCM Optic Riser

 

[YZ-80]

I quit the cantilever style mounts. I have been using the BCM optic riser since I can quickly swap a known good scope or a higher magnification scope for load development/verification.

BCM Optic Riser

View attachment 518944

That could be an option. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks!

 

[Darryle]

Cantilever mounts have never allowed me to get the scope exactly where I wanted it, it's usually below the 1.5" centerline, usually about 1.3". I changed my mind about risers, more so when BCM released their own. It allows me to torque the riser on, then I can maximize the ring spacing and still get the scope to the correct centerline.

Ring spacing alone is the best reason to abandon the one piece mounts.

 

[YZ-80]

Cantilever mounts have never allowed me to get the scope exactly where I wanted it, it's usually below the 1.5" centerline, usually about 1.3". I changed my mind about risers, more so when BCM released their own. It allows me to torque the riser on, then I can maximize the ring spacing and still get the scope to the correct centerline.

Ring spacing alone is the best reason to abandon the one piece mounts.

Yeah, that's what I'm finding out too. Plus, that Sig Sauer Tango 4 only has 5.4" to play with on the tube and a lot of that is taken up by the turret/retical housing. I may end up getting a riser like you suggested and using these (pictured), which work great on several of my bolt guns upon which I have installed picatinny rails. My scope currently sits 3.0" avove the bore axis, which I'd like to reduce by at least .5".

 

[rpol98]

Guys,

Apparently I didn't get the memo on "Buy once, Cry once" and cheaped out on my rings for this set up. I've been chasing groups around for a month, only to make the realization last evening that the base picatinny thumb View attachment 518928screws (Which had been torqued to spec with medium loctite) had worked themselves loose. These RRA straight rings have worked fine on my 5.56 rifles but not so much on the 6.5. Anyway, can somebody recommend a good cantilever mount with a more robust mounting system, say in the $150 range? The 30mm tube on the scope spans 5.4" and the current ring center is 3.0" off the center of the bore. I'd like this to be a bit lower but don't want to hamper being able to grab the charging handle. Thanks!

if that's the scope you're mounting to that upper, and presuming you have your eye-relief dialed-in, then, from that pic, you don't need a cantilever scope mount. you could use a straight-up scope mount, not cantilevered, like the ADM Recon-S, pic below. They're offered in a couple of heights.

 

[YZ-80]

I ended up with this. It just made the most sense and the price was right. The torque specs on the base screws are ridiculous at 65 in./Lbs. Maxed out the Fat wrench. By comparison, the separate ring set up was 1 connection per ring at 20 in/lbs. Dropped the scope to 2.76" above bore axis. Should be OK for my purposes. Thank you all for you comments.

 

[Chris F]

it looks like you found a good solution. I'll throw out my 2 cents anyway from the Service Rifle competition experience. We pretty much all need cantilevered mounts because of our head positions. Many of the standards like Geiselle and Nightforce put the scope centerline at around 1.3" above the top of the pic rail. But there are others at different heights. I just got done measuring a few. The PRI 1" was 1.25. The Creedmoor 30mm was 1.5" and I've got a couple of DNZ's to measure still.
Separate extended rail and rings sound like a nice solution but as the OP found, screw's work loose. Service Rifle shooters have mostly decided that more screws in your mount = more opportunity for one to work loose at the wrong moment.

 

[ntsqd]

On the topic of cantilever mounts, I'm always looking at them from flex point of view. Very, very few of this type of mount have much rigidity in the structure under and directly behind the forward ring. Some on the market seem to deliberately sabotage any rigidity that the front ring connection might have had. Maybe in practicality it doesn't matter, but it matters to me. If you only ever put a 1-6x optic in them then I doubt that it does matter, but with a heavier scope that has a significant objective lens size I'm sure that ultra high speed photography would catch that front ring bobbing up and down during firing. FWIW, those cantilever mounts that I own are all Burris PEPR. Mostly because they have a box section that offers some rigidity to the front ring, and only partly because they are not terribly expensive. I've yet to do it, but I want to lap one of them just to see how true they really are, especially since I always toss the rail topped ring caps and go with the smooth caps.

 

[skipglo]

That could be an option. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks!

Still need better rings if you go that root!

 

[rpol98]

On the topic of cantilever mounts, I'm always looking at them from flex point of view. Very, very few of this type of mount have much rigidity in the structure under and directly behind the forward ring. Some on the market seem to deliberately sabotage any rigidity that the front ring connection might have had. Maybe in practicality it doesn't matter, but it matters to me. If you only ever put a 1-6x optic in them then I doubt that it does matter, but with a heavier scope that has a significant objective lens size I'm sure that ultra high speed photography would catch that front ring bobbing up and down during firing. FWIW, those cantilever mounts that I own are all Burris PEPR. Mostly because they have a box section that offers some rigidity to the front ring, and only partly because they are not terribly expensive. I've yet to do it, but I want to lap one of them just to see how true they really are, especially since I always toss the rail topped ring caps and go with the smooth caps.

and this is why, on the AR-10 large-frame AR, I go with the straight-up mount any time I can. The AR-10 LFAR upper receiver rail is long enough to enable that.

On the AR-15, the upper receiver rail length is a lot shorter, so you're forced to go with a cantilever when you juggle everything to get the right eye relief, so you have to choose your scope mount "wisely".

on the other hand, recoil energy (imparted to the scope) on the AR-15 is a lot less than on a AR-10 LFAR. Muzzle brakes help out a lot.

 

[Flintlock shooter]

JP Rifles make a great mount that would work perfect for you.
www.jprifles.com

 

[Schroedernd]

I use larue for my heavier setups though adm makes quality stuff as well. Seekins makes great stuff and aero precision is my go to for lighter cheaper builds.