I picked up a DPMS Sportical And a Colt 6920 a few days ago and as I am wanting to put together a Lightweight hunting rifle what are the lightest rings I need to get ?
I also hear that AR rings need to be higher?
Craig

For an AR, I would recommend a 1 piece cantilever scope mount, aluminum will be the lightest. The Burris PEPR is a good example. Usually high to extra high is proper size.

You need a cantilever set-up to be able to access the charging handle easily. Rock River and Leupold also make good mounts.

So I cant just use a set of regular rings ?
Theres no way to access the charging handle with a scope mounted without a cantilever set up ?
Craig

You can use a regular set of rings . It makes the charging handle a pain to access, but you can get either a new handle or an extension for the existing handle. I have two set-up[s, both with standard rings. Will have to get an extension soon.

I was sorta thinking Leupold Rifleman medium or high rings for lightweight and I have used them on 7mm mags so I dont think the 223 would be a problem.
Craig

I am not sure how a cantilever mount makes accessing the charging handle easier. The hard part is getting your fingers under the scope eyepiece.

If you get Durasight see through rings, they are the perfect height.

Generally, to mount a scope directly to an AR's M1913 rail without some kind of riser-type base, you (again, generally) need a minimum of "high" rings. Usually, ring companies make AR rings in "Extra High" configurations. This ensures the scope is mounted at a height consistent with the average shooter's cheek weld. There's no drop to an AR stock, so you have to get the scope up high. This is beneficial, as it clears the scope from interfering with the charging handle. Though, I've never had that problem.

I favor:

http://badgerordnance.com/30mm-scope-rings/

The AR-15 extra high rings in alloy are reasonably light and as sturdy as you'll find. If you run a 1" scope, you'll have to get reducers, which I've had no problems running. Badger stuff is relatively expensive, but I've run them professionally and personally for over a decade with no problems at all.

This, from Nikon.

EdM's pic is way too high for a good cheekweld, at least for me. My two ar's are using extra high and high. Works good for good cheek position.

Leupold see thru's.

The ocular lens needs to be 2.7" above the bore and forward of the charging handle. They make several mounts that do this and do it right for a lot less than an extended latch that will dig into everything it can find.

This is a LaRue mount but its how a scope should be mounted.

I thought you were going to find a 5.5 pound 18 inch barreled rifle.

Agreed. When I first scoped an AR, I set the scope more towards the butt like I would on a bolt gun. Not only could I not access the charging handle, but cheek weld sucked and I had issues seeing through the optic.

I am ,I figured with the DPMS sportical I would have the bcg,lower Maybe upper and a lightweight barrel and I can be there as it is pretty light to begin with,and if not at the price I got it for I can afford to buy a cav lower or Magnesium lower and get there then sell the DPMS Lower and the Dpms Barrel.
As far as the Colt well ur uh its a Colt !
Craig

Colt 6720 is my fav.

I was at a Local Wally world today and picked up a pair of high Weaver Quad Lock Highs and also a Pair Of Weaver Extra highs and gonna see how they work in a Little bit.I wish they had the Leupold Riflemans but they didn,t

Yes that isa nice rifl but they didn,t have one of those or I probably would have bought one of those as thay are quite a bit lighter than the 6920.

Oh well...

Well I had a 3x9 Leupoldc laying around and tried mounting it using the high weavers and it was a nno go as the Bell of the scope hit the handguard But I then tried the EXTRA HIGH and they worked great.
I then weighed the rifle on Kitchen cooking scales and with the scope and rings and a 30 round metal magazine that came with the Sportical (with 6 rounds in it )total weight of the Package came to 7 pounds 9-1/4 ounces.
I figure since the 3x9 weighed almost 12 ounces once I switch to the 4x I should lose about 3 ounces.Also figure switching to a 5 round magazine ought to save me 3 ounces or more and could always take off the Flash hider(2 ounces?)and would almost be at my 7 pound weight for a scoped rifle ready to go.
albeit with a 16 inch barrel but I think I could get an 18 inch barrel fluted or contoured that wouldn,t weigh any more than the 16 inch barrel and maybe a little less.
I am shooting for (pun Intended) 7 pounds ready to hunt but I MIGHT Just MAYBE settle for 7 pounds and 1 or 2 ounces !
Do the plastic type of magazines weigh more or less than a metal mag of equal Capacity ?
Thanks
Craig
PS the end of the scope bell is right at the end of the charging handle and I can pull the charging handle back easily.
I will get a pic up sometime tommorow.

Works well that way. But as I"ve noted you can get by with ex high rings too. May not work for all positions but there are a few ARs I have that I'll likely never shoot from positions that requrie the extra eye relief.

So both ways work. Yours is by far more versatile. But I"ve had rings only and a 2.5x8 leupold on a 50 beowulf upper since about 2002 or 2003 and never had any issues with the setup.

The scope does not have to be forward of the charging handle. I have large hands and can still charge the rifle just fine. That is retarded unless you have an extended eye relief scope. Othewise you have to shorten your LOP or lean way forward.

Retarded?

You don't know what you don't know.

After running nearly every setup you can imagine and watching others do the same, it's clear which way works and which way is a compromise. But by all means do as you wish.

don't listen to all the super low comments. and even the picture of that over priced larue mount. those are too low of mounts. also using regular rifle rings no matter how high they are isn't a way to go either. the AR platform has a couple issues first it wasn't designed to have optics from the ground up the second is in most cases the rifles have too short of LOP, way to short. for years I hated the AR platform because I never got the right setup of optics and LOP. a commercial butt stock solved my LOP issues. but everyone thinks mil spec is always has to be better. no so. the next is the scope mounting. 2 things you need, you need the scope high enough and forward enough. the only solution a cantilever mount. there are several out there that haven't been on the market all that long, in the past larue was one of the few that made one. but burris makes one, nikon and even RRA have inexpensive cantilever mounts out there.

concentrate on a setup that brings the scope in view when you throw the gun up to your shoulder. forget about cheek weld and the scope being as low as possible. just get a comfortable setup that gives the proper view through the scope and accomplishes it quickly and comfortably.

Well I don't know about the LaRue being too low as its 1.5" above the flat top, which is higher than the irons BTW but here's a good reference for all things considered.
http://www.maxicon.com/guns/optics/one_piece/ar15_onepiece_mounts.htm

Exactly what my set-up does for me.

Well I got a few pics here and it appears that even this long bulky heavy scope would work just fine.
I could take it forward even more ifn I wanted to.
Eye relief is good if I pull my face back toward the butt or good if I push my face forward.
I suppose people are different but i get a perfect cheekweld when rifle is snapped up to my shoulder.
[URL=http://s863.photo
When I get the 3-9 swapped out with one of my 4x Compacts (on another rifle right now)it will look a lot better and be lighter as well.
Maybe i just got lucky but I cant imagine a better eye positioning !
And without having to use anything but rings and scope.
Craig

for me that scope is way way too low, when I bring the gun up I would actually be looking over the top of the scope. could I shoot the gun, yeah but I would have to cram my face into the stock. too much stock is placed in getting a scope as low as possible. rather more emphasis should be placed on what is comfortable. in this case I think many people would find medium to higher rings or mounting more comfortable.

CC, how do the irons line up for you?

Just asking cause the LaRue sits 2.7" above bore or 1.5" above the flat top (center of rings) which is the same as the irons or just a tad higher. And yes I know the LaRue is expensive but even the cheap B-square mount, Model 1 sales, RR, PEPR and a whole bunch more of them are the same.

As for the scope pictured above, Leupold advises against mounting the ring that close to the power ring. You could move that ring forward but that doesn't offer much support for the scope. That's why I reccomend a cantilever mount.

Well I supp0se that Leupold knows what they are doing but I have been mounting scopes in rings for 40 years and have never had a problem as long as it wasn,t so close that the Power ring was touching the ring,or too tight (farmer tight).
Also If I wanted to I can move the ring forward a little(or the scope back a little) and have more than enough support for the scope ,I dont plan on wrapping a rope around the scope to drag out a deer !
Now when I take it off and put the 4x I am talking about on it it is going to be perfect.

As long as it suits you that's all that matters.

no irons for me, I am not facing off against insurgents if a problem occurs with my scope I just switch rifles.

Okay....