1.93 or 2.26 Height RDS Mounts?

[calebp]

Replacing an H2 I foolishly sold off a while ago with a T2. I’ve always mounted my RDS absolute like it says in the Bible. Have zero interest in lower 1/3. I have seen a lot of talk that going to 1.93 or even 2.26 makes a much more natural head position when shooting. How does it impact POI within 200ish yards to be that far off bore? Any real reason if you’re not earning a living or larping in a basement with your nods and kac? Been super happy with the DD Micro Mount previously but kicked around the Scalar 1.42 this go round. Just hear a lot of noise about the Scalar 1.93 and the Unity.

 

[wolfmanrogers]

You match your reticle to your POI, so it won't matter at all at 200. You'll have a bit more variation up close, but it's not a big enough difference to get worried about.

 

[Dirty J]

Why zero interest in lower 1/3?

I find 1.6” (ish) over the bore to be a comfortable head position while still maintaining an extremely firm cheek weld.

Unless you’re sporting some headgear+accessories that makes 1.93 (or higher) a necessity… I find those heights to be less practical for general shooting.

 

[calebp]

You match your reticle to your POI, so it won't matter at all at 200. You'll have a bit more variation up close, but it's not a big enough difference to get worried about.

Should have clarified, planning to zero at 100yds so I guess I was curious what shift would be be like +/-100 yds from zero

Why zero interest in lower 1/3?

I find 1.6” (ish) over the bore to be a comfortable head position while still maintaining an extremely firm cheek weld.

Unless you’re sporting some headgear+accessories that makes 1.93 (or higher) a necessity… I find those heights to be less practical for general shooting.

Just always used absolute. I don't know that adding the minimal height that 1/3 would provide over absolute would make a world of difference to cheek weld/neck comfort. Could be way off there though.

 

[Dirty J]

Should have clarified, planning to zero at 100yds so I guess I was curious what shift would be be like +/-100 yds from zero

Just always used absolute. I don't know that adding the minimal height that 1/3 would provide over absolute would make a world of difference to cheek weld/neck comfort. Could be way off there though.

As a competitive carbine shooter with 10's of thousands of rounds down range at both heights through the years... it does.

I used to be an absolute guy myself.... swapped to lower 1/3 about 2 years ago... and never going back and don't intend to go higher.

I've dabbled with an Eotech XPS on a Unity riser... found it too high for my liking. Could imagine using it with an EXPS model as they've designed it. Is it comfortable? Sure. Super comfortable. I just find the further down the face you mount your stock... the less consistent that placement ends up being as the face/jaw narrows. YMMV.

 

[steviesterno]

I really want to try some higher mounts. I’m a died in the wool low mount guy and my LPVOs are almost touching the top of the receiver. But it’s impossibly weird to get my NOdS behind that in a reasonable way.

Also consider a pure 200 zero. Basically you’re low between zero and 200 yards, dead on at 200, then low again. Less stuff to remember than a 50/200

 

[wolfmanrogers]

I really want to try some higher mounts. I’m a died in the wool low mount guy and my LPVOs are almost touching the top of the receiver. But it’s impossibly weird to get my NOdS behind that in a reasonable way.

Also consider a pure 200 zero. Basically you’re low between zero and 200 yards, dead on at 200, then low again. Less stuff to remember than a 50/200

"Dyed in the wool"

 

[Dirty J]

I really want to try some higher mounts. I’m a died in the wool low mount guy and my LPVOs are almost touching the top of the receiver. But it’s impossibly weird to get my NOdS behind that in a reasonable way.

Also consider a pure 200 zero. Basically you’re low between zero and 200 yards, dead on at 200, then low again. Less stuff to remember than a 50/200

NVGs are an excellent reason to run these higher mounts. Otherwise your trading cheek weld for… virtually nothing.

 

[Jambo]

I really want to try some higher mounts. I’m a died in the wool low mount guy and my LPVOs are almost touching the top of the receiver. But it’s impossibly weird to get my NOdS behind that in a reasonable way.

Also consider a pure 200 zero. Basically you’re low between zero and 200 yards, dead on at 200, then low again. Less stuff to remember than a 50/200

With an AR the "50/200" is the same as a "pure" 200 yard zero. In both cases the "200" is the far zero, and the rifle tends to have its near zero at 50 and its far zero at 200. The round is low before 50, a little high until about 160 - 170 yards, and then zeroed again at 200. At its maximum ordinate the point of impact will be less than 2" above point of aim.

If one doesn't have access to a 200 yard range then zero at 50 yards. At most the 200 yard zero be off by around an inch. If a 200 yard range is available then by all means zero at 200. Then the difference between real 50 yard zero and theoretical 50 yard zero should be fractions of an inch.

I don't think it's possible to zero an AR-15 so that the point of impact "kisses" the point of aim at 200 yards. It is possible to do this at 100 yards.

 

[Pathfinder5243]

I’m doing similar research myself. Looking at a 20MOA taper mount with a 1.44” height for an AR10. Fingers crossed