M1A scope mount

I'm thinking of scoping my M1A, and I'm looking for a mount that would allow use of the iron sights while also low-profile enough to not require the need for a cheek riser. There seems to be a few options that will work but I'd like to see if anyone here has any input. Thanks.

I have the Sadlak aluminum mount. I have the Blackhawk cheek pad. I don’t know if there is a mount that wouldn’t require one.

I have a Sadlak steel mount on my M1A M21. It allows use of the iron sights with the mount on the rifle and adjustable comb in the fully down position but only if the scope is removed. Otherwise the scope bells block the sights.

By it's very nature and stock design, it's almost impossible to get a scope mounted so that you can use the fixed sights and/or scope without a cheek piece. The stock just has too much drop at the comb, unlike an AR which has a straight stock.

Baxter6551 said:

I don’t know if there is a mount that wouldn’t require one.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I'm starting to think.

I use the A.R.M.S "swan" mount on mine. It is a good, solid mount that has never loosened over thousands of rounds. It is a mount approved for use by the D.O.D on the M14. It is a low mount, but I still need a cheek pad with my scope mounted in low rings. Scope rings block the view of the iron sights however.

I have seen extra tall rings available that have a hole drilled in the bottom of the rings that allow you to see the irons, but that would put the scope pretty high considering the drop on these M1a stocks.

Larry

I have checked around and consensus has been to go with Sadlak. A buddy bought Springfield Armory's mount and was sorely disappointed. No complaints from anyone I talked with who's using a Sadlak. My dilemma isn't the mount, but the scope. Not sure which one I'll get. Highpower rules allow low power optics - 4x or 4.5x I don't recall. I also don't think a cheekpiece is avoidable. The rifle almost demands it if you use a scope.

Having built and used many of these for quite sometime, I'd say hard pass on the Springfield mounts. The A.R.M.S mount worked well and the Sadlak's are the industry standard for mounting, reliability and repeatability with zero.

Not much I can add but to agree with what's already been said. Sadlak mount and a cheek riser.

Had nothing but good experiences with mine.

Iirc there are two scope mount options, both thread into the left side receiver but the more solid mounts use the stripper clip charging guide to mount it more selickepu

Is the Bassett mount another viable option? I remember looking at them 15 years ago when I got an M1A but don’t seem to hear that name as much lately. It looks like they offer an option that allows co-witnessing iron sights… but also requires one helluva cheek riser.

FWIW I ended up with an Ultimak front rail, Leupold FX-II Scout scope (discontinued) in low TPS rings and can co-witness through the scope. Almost certainly not what you’re looking for …

Chip

dmn57 said:

I'm thinking of scoping my M1A, and I'm looking for a mount that would allow use of the iron sights while also low-profile enough to not require the need for a cheek riser. There seems to be a few options that will work but I'd like to see if anyone here has any input. Thanks.

Click to expand...

This isn’t going to happen, at least in my experience. You’ll need some kind of riser for the stock and they’re all a nuisance, in my opinion. If you really want to scope an M1A, I think an adjustable stock is the only way to go, but we all have our opinions.

I have an M1A NM walnut stock and I seem to recall using the Sadlak bracket and a Larue scope mount that lets me see the iron sights. I don't have a cheek pad. But's it's been a while and I can't get to it for the next couple weeks. I also added a short rail up front for a bipod, just because. It's got a big Leupold and I don't remember having issues using it.

I have a synthetic/stainless M1A that I wanted to scope and thought I wanted to use irons as well.

Springfield mount was trash

I realized that with a scope I never used irons anyway so I got a CASM mount. It replaces the rear sight and is very solid. Put a SWFA 3-15x42 FFP mil quad on it and never looked back

I did have to put a cheek riser on.

Real hard to get a scope mount either low or high for use of iron sights without using some time of cheek riser for the M14/M1A

I use a Basset low mount for my scoped M14 clone that is now in a Sage chassis. I also used it on a M14 clone with a scope that was in a standard M14 wood stock with a slide/strap on cheek riser.

Basset does make a high mount for use of iron sights. They are great mounts

Bassett M14/M1A Picatinny Rail Scope Mount

I have a Fulton Brookfield-Type DMR mount on my rifle. Looks almost identical to the Sadlak shown above, and mounts the same way. There's the side bolt, and the dovetail mount where the stripper clip once went, plus there is a set screw that presses on the front of the receiver, only visible from the other side. That gives three points of contact and prevents any movement of the mount once fixed in place.

I agree it's practically impossible to scope a M1A/M14 without using a cheek rest. Not only because of the drop in the comb of the stock, but the underside of the mount must allow sufficient clearance to prevent ejected cases from hanging up as the gun cycles. Lots of options for a cheek rest, though. A simple plastic loop over the stock, or a cut out stock with an adjustable wooden cheek rest that will lie flat when using irons. I made my own from heavy leather, that laces in place with the rear sling loop holding it in place. It comes off in a few seconds if I want to use my iron sights, which the Fulton mount allows.

Thanks for all the replies. A few takeaways: a) almost certainly will need to have a cheek riser, b) there seems to be a number of good mounts, with Sadlak mentioned most frequently, and c) the SA mount isn't all that great, which is surprising.

It comes down to mostly what you want/need, and partly to what you want to spend and there are pros and cons between the Sadlak and Springfield Gen 4 mounts.

The Sadlak mount is more expensive with the aluminum version running a bit more than a Springfield Gen 4, and the steel versions costing a lot more than the aluminum or steel Springfield mounts.

Sadlak pros and cons:

The Sadlak mounts are arguably better than the Springfield mount if you are *permanently* mounting the scope mount.

The Sadlak mount is also lower, with the ability to shoot with iron sights over the mount, through a groove in the rail.

However, you can’t do that without removing the scope first as the scope bells block the view. Consequently, you need QD rings to allow you to remove the scope to actually use the iron sights.

In other words, if the scope gets broke, or knocked out of zero and you want to revert to your iron sights, you have to remove the scope rather than just looking lower underneath the scope.

If you remove the Sadlak mount you have to go through the entire re-installation and fitting procedure again.

In other words the Sadlak mounts are a trade off, heavily biased toward permanent installation on an M-21 type of rifle/application.

There’s no free lunch even with the much vaunted and fan boy approved Sadlak mounts.



Springfield mount pros and cons:

The Springfield mounts are initially installed using a rubber mallet to tap on the mount in front of and behind the main mount thumb screw, rinsing and repeating as you continue to tighten the screw until the mount is fully seated in the receiver’s horizontal and vertical key ways. At that point the mount is precisely fitted to that receiver, and only that receiver. It’s how they achieve a reliable return to zero when removed and reinstalled.

In contrast to the Sadlak mount, once you have set up the Springfield Gen 4 mount, it comes off with two large thumb screws and will go right back on with nothing more than installing the screws (in proper sequence). The Gen 1 mount was a single screw design and went on and off even faster.

In my experience with the Gen 1 and Gen 4 mounts, both will go on and off with no loss of zero. The Gen 1 however did not allow you to use the iron sights with the mount installed. The Gen 4 with its second screw and using the stripper clip guide is no doubt more secure in terms of holding zero if the rifle gets knocked around, and lets you immediately transition to iron sights if the scope has gone out for a beer.

That second screw also allows for windage adjustment of the mount if necessary, where the Sadlak mount lacks that capability.

The Gen 4 lets you use the iron sights as they are visible under the scope with rear sight adjustments all the way out to 400 yards (with a 4-16x44 Vortex Viper and medium rings). However the Gen 4 Springfield mounts puts the scope higher than the Sadlak mount, so there is greater need for a cheek rest.

So again, there’s no free lunch and there are trade offs made with the Springfield mount, which is biased more towards quick access to the iron sights as a back up.

——

Back when I shot Service rifle competition with an M1A Supermatch, I used a scope only for practice load development and testing. I also used it in the field a few times on dee and an antelope hunts. The Springfield Gen 1 mount worked fine for those purposes and the Gen 4 would be even better.

Both Springfield mounts work just fine without a cheek riser. However the caveat is you have to either use a low power scope down around 4x-6x where parallax error is not a significant issue, or you need to use a higher magnification scope with a parallax adjustment and *use it*.

I currently use a Springfield Gen 4 mount for similar load development purposes and it’s both better and worse compared to the Gen 1. You do gain another point of contact and anchor screw by replacing the stripper clip guide and get better resistance to knocking the mount out of alignment. But you give up the stripper clip capability. For most folks it’s no big deal, but I did prefer loading with a stripper clip in rapid fire prone rather than swapping magazines. It was faster and required less change in position to accomplish.

I bought, used and ultimately sold my Sadlak mount as I just don’t always want a scope or mount on my M1A, and didn’t like having to go through the entire refitting process with the Sadlak mount.



Let’s talk about contact points.

Sadlak claims 12 points of contact and I think that’s mostly semantics of not an out right lie, and is in any case a distinction without a meaningful difference.

The Sadlak mount engages the horizontal key way on the receiver, but not the vertical key way, and it’s designed to slide along that horizontal key way as the cam screw is rotated. So you have a slip fit in that horizontal key way until you torque down the screw, and then you have some form of press fit.

At the stripper clip guide you have contact between the mount and clip guide dove tail with the key pulling the rear of the mount against one or of you are lucky both top faces of the dove tail.

You also have a set screw contacting the top of the receiver above the chamber.

So that’s one key way, the cam screw, the clip guide and the front set screw. That’s realistically four distinct contact points.


With the Springfield Gen 4 you have custom fitted contact in both horizontal and vertical key ways in addition to the main thumbscrew. You also have a custom fitted and pinned block replacing the clip guide into which the rear screw attaches as well as a sleeve around that screw that contacts the block and maintains a set distance between the mount and block.

The only thing it lacks in comparison is a front locking screw, and that’s not needed if the mount isn’t flexing. Sadlak included it because they could, not because its needed.

Another vote for Basset mounts.