quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

Popped off the Huey and mounted a EoTech EXPS

Was that Eotech previously zeroed to that rifle? If not, try doing an off/on exercise with it, to see how the RTZ is, with the Eotech mount.

I’ve been rotating the same 3 optics on and off the rifle since the first of the year.

quote:

in an situation where normal civil law still applies///Once we are past that legal situation not a chance on the planet I'm staying with a single AR

I should have clarified that aspect of the OP context. I am always in the WROL or "contemporary battlefield" headspace. The recent "everything you need; nothing you don't" thread can serve as a good example of my mindset, and is somewhat of a parallel thread. Hell, once we've got NVG gear in the mix, there is arguably zero application for the rifle, in the confines of civil law, in the hands of Joe Blo (me). As has been said many times, across the internet, there is hardly a realistically conceivable self-defense scenario that has the defender employing NVG.

With the context now better-defined, I don't disagree with your assessment. I did concede that the proposed idea would only cover "medium range" engagements. It may be simplified by saying the GP rifle concept absorbs what others might refer to as "the CQB build", "the NVG build", and "the all-around build". The CQB and NVG guns blend rather easily, and the all-around gun is absorbed with the use of QD mounts, or piggyback closed emitter dots.

In a perfect world, we'd have our dedicated SPR or "long range" build as well, in the form of another rifle, or another upper, as that is an aspect of performance that can't be absorbed without compromising the effectiveness of the GP idea. But, as I suggested in the OP, I think it's pro-active to consider the fact that these worst-case battlefield scenarios don't grant us easy storage and prompt access to another rifle in every moment where it might prove advantageous. I think the user may have to pick: do they fancy themselves the sniper, or the do-everything-else (GP) guy? It's all hypothetical, and food for thought; and it's certainly not in the context of a situation where civil law applies.

OK. I'm going to say my views. The ONLY reason I want a short barreled gun is that I might have to use it in a confined space. Once we go past the world of defensive shooting and move to offensive shooting at longer ranges I don't give a hoot about barrel length. The balance would seem to be about 14" for an AR. So I can have a longer range gun and be happy. LVPO and offset red dot seem a good balance. But 16 or 18 wouldn't bother me. I'm not going to search houses offensively.
I don't share your NV legal issues, recently a drug crazed person (now I live miles out in the boondocks so he ran miles to get to my house) ran up my driveway with two machetes claiming he was going to kill everyone. Now it turns out he went in a way that at my farm was illuminated and I could illuminate him with white light. But if not I would have no issue using NV (a pvs-14 was on the gun as is my norm) to deal with it.

quote:

16 or 18 wouldn't bother me

Me neither. Until very recently, I had been using a 16" exclusively. Is it easier to tote and maneuver a shorter gun? Heck yeah; but the 16" was hardly unmanageable. However, that particular build happened to be not super accurate (2MOA), so it felt like carrying a lot of gun without a lot of performance. I suppose it was within the parameters of acceptable battlefield accuracy, but I'd like better. Also, in my area, there are very few opportunities for long range sightlines; lots of rolling hills, forested areas, and tree lines separating pastures. The extra velocity of a longer barrel is welcome in any case, but the range advantage isn't something I need to prioritize. If you're in the woods, you sure as heck don't need the range; you're lucky to see 100m; though the extra velocity is always welcome. It's funny because, when I was using that rifle, I had the same GP mindset. I had discussions about how to utilize a longer barrel in close quarters, and put those ideas to the test on the range. I don't think it's out-of-line to think that one would work inside and amidst structures in an offensive (or defensive) manner, in a WROL or "battlefield USA" scenario. Even where I live, being mostly rural, the nearest town would likely be a contested area, or stronghold for the good or bad guys, that would be defended/attacked. I don't want to stray too far into the hypothetical scenarios; I guess my bottom line there is I believe a shorter barrel is more broadly applicable than you do.

Had that 16" been more accurate, I'd very likely still be using it. It wasn't though, and now I have a short-barrel accuracy project underway, so that's where I'm headed for the foreseeable future. If I can prove this short build's efficacy out to 400m, I'll be pretty dang satisfied, until I am confronted with a situation where it underperforms; then I'll need to weigh pros/cons and potential likelihood/frequency of that challenging circumstance.

This thread was inspired by my musing that the GP carbine is more viable than most folks think, if approached in a different way, with the use of QD mounts. Whether the GP carbine is practical for you, me, or anyone else, is up to the user; the point is it may be more practical than previously thought.

quote:

recently a drug crazed person ran up my driveway with two machetes claiming he was going to kill everyone

Whoa. I won't incite a tangent by inquiring further, but I am glad that situation apparently ended in your favor. I am sure this scenario, and it's legal fallout, with and without night vision, could be discussed/debated quite thoroughly. When I invested in night vision, and it's associated accessories, I wasn't doing it with broadening my self/home/family defense capabilities in mind. That's not to say it doesn't have applications in that context, but I think it's more at home in a military or hunting use-case. I would never imply someone is underserved, in their personal defense use-case, if they don't have NVG (and I know that's not what you're saying either).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:

I don't share your NV legal issues, recently a drug crazed person (now I live miles out in the boondocks so he ran miles to get to my house) ran up my driveway with two machetes claiming he was going to kill everyone. Now it turns out he went in a way that at my farm was illuminated and I could illuminate him with white light. But if not I would have no issue using NV (a pvs-14 was on the gun as is my norm) to deal with it.

Same. I have NV and thermal. If something happens after dark, I will use them given the opportunity.

The Saint I have been shooting got a thorough cleaning that included removing the forearm. To do so, I removed the Vortex Huey. After the detailing, I put the Huey back on and checked the zero. A five round group printed about an inch high at 50.

Gas rings were shot at 4500 rounds though.

Thank you for the follow-up jljones. Coincidentally, I was thinking about this thread yesterday; no-doubt at least partly inspired by that recent thread requesting opinions on cantilever mounts. Someone in that conversation shared a not-so-encouraging report on their experience with a Bobro mount. Maybe my method is hopeless. I intend to remain stubborn for at least a while longer.

It seems that nut-torqued, non-"QD" mounts are held in higher regard, when it comes to precision and consistency. People talk of repeatability, so long as the nuts are torqued to the same clock position or torque spec. In my application, it doesn't hurt my feelings to need to use a tool to remove/install my optic, if that'll get me better RTZ. Has anyone taken note of RTZ abilities of non-QD mounts?

On my bullseye pistols I've switched between optics without taking the optics out of the rings. As long as I don't adjust the optic in the rings themselves, reinstalling the unmolested optic\rings combo back on the pistol they came off of resulted in a pretty near return to zero. This has been my experience with both dual individual rings and dual ring\single mount type mounts.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
It seems that nut-torqued, non-"QD" mounts are held in higher regard, when it comes to precision and consistency. People talk of repeatability, so long as the nuts are torqued to the same clock position or torque spec. In my application, it doesn't hurt my feelings to need to use a tool to remove/install my optic, if that'll get me better RTZ. Has anyone taken note of RTZ abilities of non-QD mounts?

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Thank you for the follow-up jljones. Coincidentally, I was thinking about this thread yesterday; no-doubt at least partly inspired by that recent thread requesting opinions on cantilever mounts. Someone in that conversation shared a not-so-encouraging report on their experience with a Bobro mount. Maybe my method is hopeless. I intend to remain stubborn for at least a while longer.

I am a big fan of Geissele and Larue mounts. I have an Aimpoint PRO in Geissele cantilevered mount.

I asked a trusted acquaintance yesterday, what he thought was the best RTZ mount. He, unfortunately, said Spuhr. Unfortunate, because they're effin' expensive; about $500. He switches between day and night optics a lot, and is a semi-professional pest controller (coyotes, pigs, deer). He says he keeps notes on his adjustments, and switches a couple Spuhr-mounted optics gun-to-gun-to-gun, zeroing per his notes each time. He says the Spuhr has always been dead on.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I asked a trusted acquaintance yesterday, what he thought was the best RTZ mount. He, unfortunately, said Spuhr. Unfortunate, because they're effin' expensive; about $500. He switches between day and night optics a lot, and is a semi-professional pest controller (coyotes, pigs, deer). He says he keeps notes on his adjustments, and switches a couple Spuhr-mounted optics gun-to-gun-to-gun, zeroing per his notes each time. He says the Spuhr has always been dead on.

+1 on the Spuhr. I have one for my ATACR and it’s the way. EuroOptic is great to work with and helped me with both the scope and the mount. Highly recommend them.

When work calms down a bit I'm going to take a single rifle to the range and do a side by side comparison of a Larue and an ADM mount, on and off for each shot. THinking 20 or 30 rounds in a single group for each test. With a prior 10 round group to establish the rifle baseline accuracy. I have 1-6 Razors in both ADM and Larue.

Unfortunately Larue jacked up their prices through the roof, AND they discontinued the SPR-E, which was their best mount for long eye relief optics like the Gen2 Razor.

I look forward to hearing about your results, IndianaBoy. I am pinching my pennies, in hopes of picking up a Spuhr. I won't be getting the one with QD levers. I figure I'll save the weight and bulk, and use a tool to swap; applying proper torque every time.

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:


Unfortunately Larue jacked up their prices through the roof, AND they discontinued the SPR-E, which was their best mount for long eye relief optics like the Gen2 Razor.

Man, you aren’t kidding. Their price on a free float quad rail is ridiculous these days.

Shame that GDI went out of business and Larue is still here, for now.

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:
When work calms down a bit I'm going to take a single rifle to the range and do a side by side comparison of a Larue and an ADM mount, on and off for each shot. THinking 20 or 30 rounds in a single group for each test. With a prior 10 round group to establish the rifle baseline accuracy. I have 1-6 Razors in both ADM and Larue.

You've shot enough steel matches to understand how every round counts as its own group in competition. With a solid shooting position, quality ammo, and consistent technique, only a handful of rounds is necessary to determine POI changes from one scope/mount to another. 20-30 rounds in a single group primarily shows your consistency around a central POI. Large groups tend to become messy patterns, not precise groups.

A better test is 1-shot dot drills on 1 MOA dots. This process isolates each shot and provides immediate feedback for pulled shots. POI shifts between sighting systems may be difficult to measure more accurately than 1/4 MOA or so, but I submit that most shooters can't hold group sizes or POI locations to 1/2 MOA anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
Shame that GDI went out of business and Larue is still here, for now.

Is this the same GDI you guys are talking about? If so, they appear to be very much in business?

Most web retailers closed out GDI mounts around 2020, with a couple red dot mount stragglers still in stock. The website being up again is a good sign.

Yep, as of a year ago, GDI's website had been taken down, their phone disconnected, and their facility marked as "Permanently Closed" on Google Maps. I figured them for goners too.

Looks like they may be back up and running now, just relocated to Reno, Nevada instead of Temecula, California like before.