Have the scope picked out, need a mount

[araym]

I recently attended an Appleseed event with my kid. She shot my M&P 15-22 with the factory iron sights & I shot a new Ruger 10/22 with a Nikon ProStaff 3-9x40 Rimfire with BCD 150 reticle. I was so impressed with how the scope performed that I decided I'd buy a second one for my 15-22.

So here's my question for those of you who own that particular configuration: which mount/ring should I buy to put that scope on my 15-22?

Perusing this forum I see that a lot of people like the Nikon P-Series mounts. But my local gun shop said I should mount any scope as low to the barrel as possible, especially since this will be used for my kid. Otherwise, they said, she won't get a good cheek weld if she has to lift her head too high to see through an elevated scope. And the photos I've seen of the P-Series mounts (and/or the Nikon M-223 mounts) look like the scope is pretty high off the barrel/rail. On the other hand, you can't get it too low, otherwise the pretty wide objective lens on the Nikon 3-9x40 Rimfire won't clear the rails.

The one they showed me (Weaver Tactical) did fit (barely - so I guess that's good) alas it was so low that the dust cover cap would have to be dremeled down over the objective lens otherwise it won't slide between the lens and the picatinny rail. I'm thinking maybe that's just a tad too low...

Any thoughts or recommendations for me?

 

[trololol]

Nightforce makes a couple mounts that might help. The Unimount is available in 1.125" and 1.375" heights.
The LaRue LT158 is pretty low at 1.44". They are fairly pricy but are solid mounts. Im sure someone will chime in with more affordable options. Generally most of the AR scope mounts are higher so they can clear the iron sights. Rings might be in order if you want to go lower.
Maybe consider getting a cheek rest if your kid can reach and find it comfortable. You cant go wrong with the Nikon P-series mounts though. They are very good for the price.

 

[Vinney47]

traditionally, yes. You want to mount the scope as low the the barrel as possible with enough room for the objective bell to clear. This provides the least degree of variance in angles between optic and bore for better accuracy over varying distances. It becomes less important on a .22lr, IMO, because you just aren't going to be shooting past 100 yards really and at that range (a relatively short distance) it matters less.

I think your biggest challenge here isn't going to be picking the right mount, but in not over thinking it.

 

[trebor127]

buy what you look the likes of

if the mount is a little high,just buy a cheek riser for the stock

keith

 

[ScoobyDoo]

The reason that most people say to mount the scope as low as possible is that you want the axis of the scope and the axis of the barrel to be as close as possible to one another. The further apart those axis are, the more difficult it is to keep the sights and the actual path of the bullet close to each other across various distances. While this is supposed to be used as a guideline, cheek weld and what feels natural to you is also important (as well as getting the scope high enough that the objective bell clears the rifle's barrel, of course).

All that said, most rifles have a drop at the comb which puts the stock slightly below the receiver. Because your cheek is thus below the line of the receiver, you can usually get away with a low mount. However, the AR-15 (and therefore the 15-22) has a stock that is at the same height as the receiver. Thus, you will notice that the iron sights on the 15-22, and most optics that people mount on AR-15s are higher off the stock. If you don't mount them high enough, you find yourself fighting your stock, pushing your cheek down into the stock to get your eye low enough which is uncomfortable and does not lend itself to good shooting.

If your kid is comfortable with the height of the open sights, and has good cheek weld there, then get a set of rings that will put the scope at a similar height. Warne makes a set of rings that put the center line of a scope at the same height as the factory iron sights - they can even be used for co-witnessing with a red dot, although I would remove the iron sights when using a scope. They come in two different sizes depending on whether you have a 1" or 30mm tube on your optic and they come in either quick detach or fixed. I use these rings and have a 1" QD set for my scope and a 30mm QD set for an UltraDot Red Dot. Warne rings are excellent by the way and do a great job of returning to zero when taken on and off the rifle.

Model numbers, and a picture of my 15-22 with the rings and a 1" Weaver scope, below. You might have to search around the internet a bit to find them - the QD are much easier to find than the fixed. I think I got mine off eBay for $60 +/- each but you have to shop around (a link to a reasonably priced pair on eBay is below - it looks like an advertisement was inserted but that is actually the link I entered).

Warne 1" Ultra High AR-15 Fixed Rings A604LM (.935")
Warne 1" Ultra High AR-15 Quick Detach Rings A204LM (.935")
Warne 1" Ultra High AR-15 Quick Detach Rings A204LM (.935")

Warne 30mm Ultra High AR-15 Fixed Rings A617LM (.850")
Warne 30mm Ultra High AR-15 Quick Detach Rings A217LM (.850")

A picture of my 15-22 with a set of Warne A204LM rings and a Weaver scope with a 1" diameter tube.

 

[4Cody4]

I had a rock river arms one piece mount on my DPMS, but found it too high. I ended up buying a Warne Skelemount, which is lower and much more comfortable to me. I'm not sure if all mounts/rings are this way now, but they said they do not need to be lapped before mounting the scope.

I'd buy another Warne mount any day and they are cost competitive with other mounts like the Nikon etc.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Scooby outlined it well.

I would look at one-piece mounts. It allows more flexibility with eye relief (being able to push the optic forward while keeping the mount on the receiver) than conventional scope rings.

 

[wbear]

Scooby outlined it well.

I would look at one-piece mounts. It allows more flexibility with eye relief (being able to push the optic forward while keeping the mount on the receiver) than conventional scope rings.

I agree one-piece mounts are the way to go for the reason you stated plus several others. I can't see myself using anything else unless I am forced to.

I like the Burris PEPR Mount. Works great on my 15-22 and is cheaper than some of the other popular "name" brands. Puts the crosshairs or dot at the same height as the iron sights on a flat top, about 1.5".

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

This is a web site dedicated to one-piece AR mounts. Probably more info and specs than anyone would ever want to know... but it might give folks some ideas.

AR15 One-Piece Mounts

Primary Arms sells a bunch, including a selection of their own branded one-piece mounts for $59.

https://www.primaryarms.com/AR-15-M-16-Rings-and-Mounts-s/376.htm

 

[araym]

Thanks to all. There were a lot of great thoughts in here. I do appreciate all of your comments. In fact they inspired me to do, and document, a bit of research on my own:

I assume others will eventually have the same question as I did (this is a common scope) so I did a little investigation using my digital caliper.

The tube is 1". I already knew that but I verified the diameter. The objective bell measured out to 2". So some simple math tells me that to clear the objective bell alone, I need to come up from the top of the rail by 1/2".

If I also wish to use the lens dust covers while the scope is mounted on the rail, I need to know that distance too. So I measured the outside diameter of the objective lens dust cover; it was 2 3/16". Once again, to clear that, I'd have to come up from the rail by 1 3/32 - 1/2 = 19/32".

But that would be a very snug fit. So if I round up my dust cover to 2 1/4", then I need to clear the top of the rail by 1 1/8 - 1/2 = 5/8" or 0.625".

So that's consistent with the handy Brownells Ring Height Chart at: Ring Height Chart | World's Largest Supplier of Firearm Accessories, Gun Parts and Gunsmithing Tools - BROWNELLS

OK, now I'm getting somewhere. I know the minimum height whatever mount or ring I select needs to lift my ProStaff scope to clear both the objective lens bell and cover - regardless of brand.

Now I just need to find how high any particular brand raises a 1" tube from the top of the rail to the bottom of the tube. And assuming for sake of argument I select the Warne rings, they have a handy chart for me at: http://warnescopemounts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2014-Poster-Chart-12-31-13.pdf And that chart is nice because it makes crystal clear that they're measuring from the top of the base to the bottom of the scope tube. From there, all I have to do is select any mounting options I want, style, and I'm good to go. Hopefully other brands will have similar charts but, if not, I'm guaranteed of getting what I want with the Warne, cross referencing my own math and confirming with the Brownells table.

Thanks for helping me get started. You've made other related thoughtful comments that I need to evaluate as well (e.g. the comments about the higher AR-style stock and thus higher cheek weld - will have to consult the kid on what feels comfortable to her) but now I have confidence that at least I won't order the wrong size rings or mounts and something just won't fit.

Thanks again.

 

[oldguysrule650]

Very much appreciate the OP posting this thread and the many informative replies. My situation is exactly the same as the OP. After finally deciding to get a scope instead of a red dot sight; I just ordered this same scope last night online from Dicks Sporting Goods(on sale for $129; $119 with a coupon and free shipping) and am confused over what mount to get (eg Nikon P series, M series, one piece, two piece, height, etc.). The info above will certainly help me make a decision.

 

[oldguysrule650]

I have decided to go with the Burris PEPR and will order it in the next day or so.

Wbear: are you also using the Nikon 3-9x40 bdc rimfire scope with it?

 

[wbear]

I have decided to go with the Burris PEPR and will order it in the next day or so.

Wbear: are you also using the Nikon 3-9x40 bdc rimfire scope with it?

Good Choice, you won't be disappointed. I will buy it again if I need another mount. Also comes with smooth ring tops if you don't like the ones with the picatinny rail on them.

I am using a Hawke Panorama EV 4-12x40 with adjustable objective and illuminated reticle (red or blue). Very nice scope that has an etched reticle and is spring piston air gun rated.

The scope height is perfect for me and has clearance for a 50mm objective.

 

[araym]

The reason that most people say to mount the scope as low as possible is that you want the axis of the scope and the axis of the barrel to be as close as possible to one another. The further apart those axis are, the more difficult it is to keep the sights and the actual path of the bullet close to each other across various distances. While this is supposed to be used as a guideline, cheek weld and what feels natural to you is also important (as well as getting the scope high enough that the objective bell clears the rifle's barrel, of course).

All that said, most rifles have a drop at the comb which puts the stock slightly below the receiver. Because your cheek is thus below the line of the receiver, you can usually get away with a low mount. However, the AR-15 (and therefore the 15-22) has a stock that is at the same height as the receiver. Thus, you will notice that the iron sights on the 15-22, and most optics that people mount on AR-15s are higher off the stock. If you don't mount them high enough, you find yourself fighting your stock, pushing your cheek down into the stock to get your eye low enough which is uncomfortable and does not lend itself to good shooting.

So just to add a bit more to the discussion, I think Scooby was spot on. Having just come off a Project Appleseed event where they taught us about Natural Point of Aim, I decided to try the same principles here. Both I and my daughter tried both my Ruger 10/22 where the stock drops, and the AR-style 15-22 where it is flat. We both grabbed each rifle with our eyes closed, got into a comfortable position with a good cheek weld, and then opened our eyes and compared that to the sights on the respective rifles. On the Ruger with the lowered stock, the low scope was pretty much right on target at the same natural height of our eyes. On the 15-22 with the higher stock, when we opened our eyes we were once again spot on ... with the open and higher iron sights. So that convinced me that if I put on the bare minimum height to clear the objective bell plus dust cover, then that would be too low.

So how high are the open sights? Well we had just sighted it in for the Appleseed rimfire standard 25 yard range. I took the 15-22 rear sights off the rail, measured it with my digital caliper, and it came in right at 1 1/2" above the top of the rail to the center of the peephole. Subtracting 1/2 inch to account for the radius of the 1" scope tube tells me that I need to elevate the bottom of the tube by 1". So I'm done: I need a mount / set of rings that lift the scope up by one inch - that will give us a natural cheek weld with this stock for this gun.

Thanks to all who provided many great thoughts. I hope this helps the next 15-22 owner who buys this or a similar scope. I know working through this with all of you has certainly helped me.

 

[mn_doggie]

I've had a 15-22 for several years. It gets taken to the range quite often and I usually have a friend (quite often first time shooters with me). I have iron sights, a TRS-25 and a 3x9 scope all mounted on the rifle.

Yup, I know it looks like a mall ninja set up but the new shooters really like the ability to see all the different types on one rifle (as do I). Plus all the extra weight helps reduce the "extreme" recoil of the .22lr

Here are some photos from older threads here. I did move the TRS red dot to the other side cuz it is easier to use when on the right side. The scope is very high off the buttstock but I'm old and have neck problems so it is much more comfortable for me....

The Rings are Leupold see thru.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-...e-top-45-degree-reflex-dot.html#post136328036

Here's one picture from that thread...

 

[biggbiker]

Thanks to all for posting. I am getting a Nikon 3x9 scope also, and am in the process of picking a mount setup. BiggB