Carry Handle Mounted Optics w/ Iron Sights Still Usable?

[DMW1116]

My intent was a 3” high max trajectory at 150 yards which would keep elevation within a 6” window out to just under 300 with the 2900 to 3000 fps velocity and 55 grain FMJ projectile. I was trying to hit an 8” target at 200 yards and missed all but once out of 7 tries. These are hand loads and I could be off on my velocity.

 

[trackskippy]

If you want a great ballistics calculator that lets you fiddle with all sorts of things, like "point blank range", JBM Ballistics is an easy to use calculator that is really handy.

With the point blank range function, you just plug in the size of your vital zone, and it gives you the zero distance that will fit that based on what youre shooting, and where in that, say 6" circle, if thats what youre using, all along the way.

http://www.jbmballistics.com

For what youre trying to do, I would think a 50 yards zero will work better than a 100 yard zero, as it gives you a little flatter trajectory.

This might give you a better idea as to how the different zeros work....

 

[DMW1116]

I’ve been using the maximum point blank range calculator on Shooters Calculator. Is there a lot of difference between different ones?

I’m basically already using a 50/250 zero, as the calculator gives a 47/248 near/far zero with my velocity and bullet choice for a 6” diameter target. That just happens to coincide with a 3” high maximum trajectory at 150 yards, or very close. For trajectory calculations I use Nikons spot-on information.

 

[trackskippy]

JBM has a lot of options and a few different calculators, if you really want to get into it. I tried a couple of the others prior to finding it, and really havent looked elsewhere since. I dont really use a lot of what they have, but as long as I get the input as tight as I can, and know my ammo's actual velocities, things seem to jive real close.


Just out of curiosity, how much time do you have shooting iron sights?

Sometimes the target vs practical zeros use can cause some problems, especially where you use a 6 o'clock hold on a target with a few inches from 6 and center, and youre zeroing the gun to center.

If your only target shooting, at known distances and known targets, its not a big deal, and a 6 o'clock hold gives a better, more consistent aiming point. If youre trying to use that zero, and hold right on with those sight settings, youre going to have a different experience I think. Youre either going to be high or low, depending on how you zeroed the gun (6 o'clock vs a dead-on hold).

If youre using a bullseye target, and a 6 o'clock hold, Id zero so the rounds hit at the 6 o'clock aiming point, and not above it in the center.

 

[DMW1116]

I have some new hand loads to check in this rifle this weekend. I’ll check zero with the old loads before testing them.

I’ve shot open sights for decades but just started shooting regularly 3 years ago. I have a Marlin 22 with Tech Sights, but this rifle I’ve only had for a few months.

 

[herrwalther]

"Z-mount" is not the right term

Z mount is easier to search for.

 

[shoobe01]

What I meant also was that as far as I can tell, all the ones called a "Z-mount" are cheap imports, maybe even soft metal for airsoft sold inappropriately for real guns. Seen it before for too many parts.

This is under a lot of stress, and good ones can be mis-mounted easily, cause issues. I'd be sure to get a good one. As far as I know only these:

• Aimpoint. LOTS of them surplussed out, go check eBay.
• EOtech. Appears to be exactly the same. I have no idea who makes them, but neither of these guys I assume.
• ARMS. They made a couple, still catalog the #39, which is very different from the above, rather slicker design, and full picatinny rail to mount to vs the single crosscut on the Aimpoint and (I think) EO. Note If you hate ARMS throw levers, fine, but some stuff works 100% great like the FAL top cover, this, and the carry handle rail converter.

Trijicon and/or Meprolight or... someone, also made/sold goosenecks, but with a custom mounting base ONLY for the Reflex line of sights. Used by the IDF for years and years. Positive retaining on the nut is nice on these.


PRI makes (made?) one that I have never, ever seen in the wild, and so I am not sure about at all therefore. Normally decent to very good stuff, though.

Oh, and for true completeness, there's the Elbit Falcon mount Honestly not a gooseneck, but clamps between carry handle and the FSB, but same effect. That's very weird and OLD, but cool as hell and some days I miss my Falcon.

 

[army_eod]

US Army trained me with a 25 meter zero (which is your 300 yard target above) using the M-16 A-1. Center mass shots were effective to 300 meters.

 

[12Bravo20]

US Army trained me with a 25 meter zero (which is your 300 yard target above) using the M-16 A-1. Center mass shots were effective to 300 meters.

Same training for both the A1 and A2 when I was in. Though here lately I have actually been using the Marine Corp 36 yard zero for iron sights and red dots.

A good video explaining the different zeros and shows POA/POI differences.



Here is what a 36 yard zero looks like and the impact at different distances.

 

[Varminterror]

I had a carry handle pic rail on one of my rifles for years - which I know I picked up in store at a Gander Mountain, but it doesn’t have any identifying marks on it - which had a bore hole through it. It wasn’t a perfectly clean sight picture with the larger aperture, but it was possible to use the sights through it.

Personally, I prefer to learn to manage my optics and shoot fast and close even through the scope…

 

[CapnMac]

Since this is a removable carry handle build, I'd probably recommend a good red dot sight (if you have a front sight post, you probably want to select a "co-witness" RDS).

Now, back-up iron sights (BUIS) are not nice about sharing rail real estate with RDS. Whic his where the angled sights can come in handy. That's "can" as in maybe, and YMMV.

Those are A2 style: https://www.brownells.com/rifle-par...=Avantlink&utm_content=NA&utm_campaign=208793

From my experience with "see through" mounts, they are universally awful. You typically would have a better view through a soda straw. While you generally can "see the sights" you often can't see the target, too.