Hey all, question here. I've read that it's generally a bad idea to mount a scope in such a way that it bridges between the body of the rifle and the handguard. I can understand why this is, it makes perfect sense.
I want to know how much of an issue it's really going to cause, especially considering the fact that my 3-9 scope is actually mounted first on a Tapco riser, and not attached directly to the rails on the top of the rifle. In order to get proper eye relief, I'll need to mount my scope both on the body and the handguard.
What do you guys think? How much of a problem is this really likely to cause?

I bet Chuck knows the answer for sure.

I 'think' a monolithic AR such as ours, still should not have a mount, even the way you describe yours, forward of the receiver.

I may be dead wrong though.

This Chuck is a new owner of this rifle.

Are these monolithic or two piece upper receivers? I've only had mine for 10 days and don't notice any flex between the two halves -- if there really are two halves.

If these are really two piece there's always potential for a flex factor.

One of the long-time shooters of this rifle should be able to help here.

-- Chuck

It is not a monolithic upper. The Upper receiver and handguard are indeed two separate pieces. Even if it was a monolithic upper, I would still try to keep the scope back over the normal receiver mounting are, since the polymer handguard is not as stiff as an aluminum one.

If you are using a riser rail that clamps on the rail the full length of the riser to bridge the gap, it will be stiffer mounting surface than bridging the gap with regular scope rings. The further forward your riser mount rides on the handguard, the more chance your going to have accuracy problems.

If your really serious about squeezing out accuracy, I suggest a cantilever mount that gets the eye relief where it needs to be, but still allows the mount to stay on the upper receiver.

What's considered an acceptable level of accuracy? That's a subjective measurement and it depends on what you are trying to do. And of course, your optics are only one piece of the accuracy puzzle. One great thing about modern military style rifles is the modularity of it all. If you find the optic is suffering where you mount it, you're free to move it to another position and try again.

IMO, the 15-22 isn't going to notice one way or the other. It seems best suited to 50 yard plinking. I tried it at 100 yards with a 3-9x.... this rifle isn't at home at much over 50 yards. At least mine isn't... but I didn't expect that it would be when I bought it.

I think Chuck tends toward humility. That is quite an admirable trait imo.

I believe Thomas really nailed it. I also agree with his assessment, that the modularity of the AR platform is one of it's strong points, and in fact that is what really attracted me to the M&P 15-22. I also like, how incredibly easy it is, to break down and clean. Once spare parts, like bolt carrier groups become available, I know I will feel great about having them handy for a quick and easy change out.

Another thing that really attracted me to the M&P 15-22, is the match grade Thompson Center barrel, made of stainless 4140 chrome steel. A lot of people, have already reported having really good accuracy, with this brand new rifle.

When you consider that the 15-22 is a completely new production series, it is obvious that most shooters really haven't had time yet, to even begin to realize it's full potential for accuracy. I believe that accuracy, at longer ranges, is just a matter of time for most 15-22 owners. Just as it is with close range shooting, accuracy at longer ranges, is highly dependent upon the skill of the shooter. A highly skilled shooter, can do amazing things with just about any rifle, after becoming truly familiar with it. As in just about anything else, practice, makes perfect.

Have a great Thanksgiving Holiday everyone.