Suitable rings for scoped m1a

D

Duke of Lawnchair

New member
Hello,

Just purchased an ARMS18 for my m1a and would like to mount my 42mm objective scope to it. I was wondering what would be a good set of rings that would bring the scope as low as possible to the bore centerline.

Thanks,
Jim

[Edited by Duke of Lawnchair on 02-28-2001 at 07:17 PM]
 
I use the low Burris Zee rings on my M1A. They're all steel, matte finsih, very robust, affordable, simple, and about as low as a weaver style ring can be. -- Kernel
 
What rings???

Duke, check me out on this Arms #...but I think the quick detach, # 22???....are really good....they allow you take off your scope, and use the iron sights, and then re-attach the scope for shooting w/out loss of zero...in a flash.
Since you have gone to the expense of getting the Arms mount..don't chince on the rings........just my opinion
 
Why quick detach rings? Dosn't the entire mount come off with the turn of a few thumb screws?

To tell the truth, there's so many M1A mounts on the market nowdays I'm not 100% sure what an "ARMS18" even looks like. -- Kernel
 
Ditto on what Kernel said the Buris Zee rings worked well on my rifle. I use the Springfield mount and I'm happy with it. I still can use the iron sights also.
 
Thanks

To all of those that replied, thank you. Looks like I'll go for the ARMS22 quick detach rings. My question is now, what ring height should I use for a 42mm objective scope? Low, medium or high?

Thanks,
Jim
 
kernel & mike

You don't want to remove your mount,they are too difficult to rezero....Also, if Duke ever wanted to shoot movers.he can with a quick flick remove for irons, and just as quick reinstall them.
Springfield mounts are ok, but over time they work loose.....Duke has an A1 mount..it makes no sense to put inexpensive rings on an Arms base.
A solid platform deserves the best rings you can put on it.
Duke, the lowest you can get is the way to go....ask before you buy, but I'm sure you will have mucho room for the LOwest rings you could find............fwiw.......
 
prod_22_ring.gif

ARM #22

It's a joke, right? People really pay $100 for these god awful monstrosities? Make it ugly, paint it black, call it "tacitical", charge twice what it's worth, and people will beat a path to your door.

Seriously, the design of that ring looks way, way, WAY to high. Any quick detach ring is gonna be to high which makes them a bad choice for the M1A because it's mounts are to high already.

If you want the lowest ring that's all steel and designed to fit a weaver base get a Burris Zee ring. I looked at a lot of rings before I bought mine, cost really had nothing to do with it, I got'em because they were the lowest design I found.... the fact that they're afforable and hell for stout was just an added bonus. They're inexpensive, about $25 a pair, but they ain't cheap.

If you want a good quick detach ring get a Warne. They're not any cheaper but they're a darn sight better looking than that ARM22. -- Kernel
 
tshoes you are right the springfield mount will work loose.
but not if you install it properly. I instaled mine as per instructions that came with the mount. I had the problems that everyone talks about. I talked to a local smith and he told me how to set the mount up properly. mine has held zero since I mounted it. I've removed it several times and it still has held zero. I feel that alot of guys are giving the springfield mount a bum rap. And regarding the QD ring system there are too many parts and I believe in the K.I.S.S. theory. Lotsa parts = lotsa problems
JMHO
 
Arms rings........

Kernel, don't want to start a pee pee conflict....but if you will notice how SHORT the rings are from the bottom of the base, to the actual part that engages the rail, it is quite short.
This of course is where the Height comes into play.......
Bottom line, there IS NO good system on the / for the M1A as far a a decent scope mount for cheek weld purposes.
It's called a chin weld..............
Only option for relief......an adjustable cheekpiece.....
Ala, M3............
Burris has it's place....just NOT here.
As usual .......IMHO, and for what it's worth.....
 
TShoes, I see exactly what you're looking at - from the bottom of the ring to the top of the dove tail - that ring is TALL. By most standards it would be considered a high or extra high ring. A low Burris Zee ring would easily be 1/8" to 3/16" shorter, probably more. It seems like a small amount but every little bit counts, especially when you're already to high.

To help get the proper check weld I use Cabelas lace on leather cheek pad on my M1A (with a couple of layers of carpet under it!). My eye lines up perfectly. The down side is I have to "hold low" to use the iron sights.

One additional thing I'll say about the Burris Zee ring is the screw that holds the ring in place passes thru the cut outs in the weaver base. This mechanically locks the ring to the base. Most weaver type rings, and the ARM22 looks like one, rely only on friction to secure the ring to the base. That's an inherently weak design IMO since, in the absence of adequate friction, the ring is free to slide up and down the base. The Burris ring uses both friction and mechanical geometry to lock the ring in place, even if the hold down screw is loose the ring is not free to move.

Like Mike14 I use a Spgfd 3rd Gen mount. Get it on right & tight and it's solid as a rock. Goes on and off and returns (reasonably close) to zero. -- Kernel
 
I had trouble mounting a ATN 6x18 on mine with low QR rings from Leupold. I had to go to medium to clear the mount. I think I paid $48 for them. MWT
 
The medium height Leupold QRW's are an excellent choice, they sit low, without sitting so low as to allow the objective bell to touch the handguard. I ended up using Millett Angle-Loc Steel windage adjustable rings on my M14NM, with the ARMS #18 base. It's about as low to the bore axis as one can get, more so than the Springfield or Brookfield Precision, but any way you look at it, you still need to adjust somehow for cheek placement and eye alignment. But that's a fairly easy fix, too:

http://www.geocities.com/gew98.geo/m14nm.jpg
 
Mike14,
Could you expand on the proper mounting technique you've described for the Springfield mount?

Thanks,
SM
 
Airborne:
Make sure the machined lugs on the inside of the scope mount match up with the slots on the receiver and fully tighten the forward thumb screw(find the right sized screwdriver)
get it tight. run the male bushing up till it just touches the new stripper clip guide. Put the rifle on sand bags and find a target about 100 yards away. align iron sights on target. Now look through the scope and you will probably be a good deal left of the target you put your iron sights on. Now take a screwdriver and tighten the male bushing against the stripper clip guide while sighting through the scope until the scope windage lines up with the iron sights. When you line up tighten the lock nut up with a good 3/4 inch open end wrench. check alignment again and make adjustments if needed.Get that lock nut tight. And then thread the long rear thumb screw into the stripper clip guide and tighten the thumbscrew down.
This is what worked for me.
 
Thanks

Mike14,

Thanks for the info. It sounds like your "pre-loading" or tensioning the mount with the rear bushing. That should help to keep things tight...like a big lock washer. I would think too much tension would be bad, but I'll check mine to see how much I've got on it. A little should go a long way.

Best,
SM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top