FN Herstal Firearms banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
I just got my SPR A1 from Tactical Coordination yesterday. It comes with the Badger Ordnance 20 MOA Picatinny rail. I have a Leupold MK4 optic with 50mm objective lens and a LaRue LT111 QD scope mount. The LT111 is way to damn high for this rifle I need to get a lower scope mount. I was looking into the LaRue LT120 which is similar to the LT111, but sits about .25" lower. Anyone used this? The other thing I am worried about is that the Badger Ordnance 20 MOA Picatinny rail has groove cut out down the center of the Picatinny rail, so the Picatinny sections do not go all the way across. Reading reviews on LaRue's website people are saying to be sure to use full Picatinny rails or else the partial sections will start eating away at the lugs on the LaRue mounts. Anybody here have suggestions for a good full section of Picatinny rail to mount to the SPR A1?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
So a friend of mine had some Ken Farrell rings that he sold me at a discount price due to a small ding (no worries, they're going on a tactical rifle that will be used in the field anyway). I believe they are the low-height rings, but they may be the standard-height. The 50mm objective Leupold Mk4 mounts with very minimal clearance. So close, in fact, that the flip-up lens cap won't fit! I measured the lens cap thickness with calipers somewhere between 2 and 2.5mm. I just left the front lens cap off for now. I'm thinking about getting the Leupold Alumina thread-on lens cap as it threads onto the internal scope threads and has the same outside diameter as the objective. What do you guys think? Pipe Material property Auto part Muffler Optical instrument
Material property Metal Steel
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,218 Posts
Not all rings heights are based on a single standard. What is a standard height for one manufacture is not the standard height for another manufacturer. Badger Ordnance standard rings might be higher or lower than Ken Farrell rings or a different manufacturers rings.

Best bet is to always call the ring manufacturers (go to their web site for scope ring specs if they are posted) and have the necessary information for them to assist you, rifle model, rail model, scope model, scope cover model, etc.

I am in a similar situation where I purchased BO Standard rings with the .823' heights. Adding the thickness of the lens caps sleeves to the objective bell of the scope, I have very very little room between the barrel and the cover.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,859 Posts
Not all rings heights are based on a single standard. What is a standard height for one manufacture is not the standard height for another manufacturer. Badger Ordnance standard rings might be higher or lower than Ken Farrell rings or a different manufacturers rings.

The location that is used for height measurement is one thing that makes finding the correct ring a pain, one manufacturer will base their measurement off the the lower section of the scope channel to the flat of the base for the 1913 rail (B) while others measure from the center of the scope channel to the flat of the base (A) as shown in this diagram.



Here is a link to help take some guess work out in this semi black magic voodoo procedure
Scope Ring Height and Clearance Calculator

@ steath-ops while I wouldn't like mine setup like that, that low, out side of having to figure out a lens cover that will work and possibly unhappy cheek rest the setup you have should be usable as long as the bell of you scope isn't touching your rail as it appears from the pic.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top