I have a concern about this mounting system

Sell that non-freefloat rail, buy a freefloat rail and then you would have no issue with that mount.

The DD omega rails are nice, not too expensive,gives you a floating continuous top rail and you do not have cut out the factory handguard retainers.


The ADM recon and X-mount spacing is 2.5" (dimension E from your diagram)
 
Riflechair said:
I seems sturdy
I just don't like bridging the stock and the knights rail.
Not entirely level either

Should I keep it like this?
The Falcon eye relief requires that I mount her really far forward

What do you guys think?

ar2.jpg
Click to expand...

Your mount looks strong enough to take the stress of bridging without affecting the scope.

Bridging stiffens the free float forend to receiver -

Anything that stiffens whip and vibration is generally a good thing.

It is worth trying.

However - a free float forend is tried and true - That WILL work.
swingerlh.gif
 
Prior to our M4 FF RAS MRE - one unti in Ft. Bragg would use ARMS Sleeves on the M4 RAS.

Bridging a Non FF RAS system with a ring mount is not a good idea, but the using a mount as a bridge will clamp the rail to the upper.
Providing the bridge is solid, you are not really going to have any issues.

Its not super cool - and if I where expecting any impacts (like jumping, fast roping etc.) I would not advise on it, but as far as civilian range shooting goes, other than looks I can't really recommend against it.
 
Here's my rifle I use for Service Rifle matches. (when I actually have time to shoot service rifle) It's got the American Defense AD-Recon mount with 30mm rings. Puts the scope exactly where I need it. It also has "wiggle" room for placement, both forward, and rearward on the upper receiver. Leaves the KAC handguard free to mount other toys on.
ar service rifle.jpg
 
Here's my solution for mounting the Falcon scope:
P1050462.jpg
It uses a Yankee Hill offset riser (0.5") and a set of 30mm Burris Signature Zee medium height rings. Total cost around $100 with taxes in. Note that the scope zoom ring just clears the top of the mount.
 
chopper 1 said:
Bridging stiffens the free float forend to receiver -

Anything that stiffens whip and vibration is generally a good thing.
Click to expand...

His fore end is not floated. There is contact with the front ring, and the bridging could be further enhancing the effect of the fore end on the barrel - which in contradiction to your statement, is not a good thing on an AR with respect to accuracy.
 
beltfed said:
His fore end is not floated. There is contact with the front ring, and the bridging could be further enhancing the effect of the fore end on the barrel - which in contradiction to your statement, is not a good thing on an AR with respect to accuracy.
Click to expand...

Doubt it - front ferrule plates (if he has one - are loose - no pull on the barrel)
At the breech there will be little effect on the barrel - just the forend, [making it stiffer].

A non free float forend that is stiffer and not wobbling to a different position with each shot I think is a good thing - more group consistency due to consistent vibration - (ala M14 tuning tricks).

A forend locked to the receiver by a scope mount rail is similar to a free float rail locked to the barrel at the receiver - just not as secure and strong as free float mounts.

Then there is the accurate PWS piston AR design -
The barrel is locked to the receiver with picatinney rails - no forend.

Misc-Yes_No_Monty_Python.gif
swingerlh.gif
 
I would tend to agree with Kevin, there is nothing wrong with your setup aside from the reduced tacticool factor.

Shoot it, if it works then show up all the other haters on the range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom