1.54" vs 1.93" vs 2.26" - The Best AR-15 Optic Height? | 9-Hole Reviews

[@mtnbound2764]

this wont be controversial

[@concernedpatriot.2221]

😂😂😂

[@Kremit_the_Forg]

I'm sure the comments will be absolutely civil and everyone will respect each others perspectives.

[@adamrodgers2377]

​@@Kremit_the_Forg No, no we will not. We will argue and throw poop like the monkeys we are. 🤣

[@mtnbound2764]

@@adamrodgers2377 carry on

[@adamrodgers2377]

@@mtnbound2764 🫡

[@davewebster5120]

"Same same, but different." Like from The Interview. I lost it. Great intel, as always.

[@dnaka2001]

If you want a cheek weld with a 1.93 or 2.26 mount height on an AR, the Larue Tactical RISR reciprocating riser works well. It will slide back when you pull the charging handle.

[@9HoleReviews]

Agree! Run the exact part on one of our CTR stock setups. One thing we don't cover in this session, but does have material impact is indeed the stock choice and how the shooter's head mounts and contacts with the stock, not just 'where' the stock contacts the shooter's face...having a small riser or even a stock with a slightly beefier area like the B5 Sopmod can make a difference in which heights feel comfortable.

[@immikeurnot]

I was on a hunt last year using my AR15 with an LPVO in a LaRue LT104 with the 1.5 height. It was really cold, so I was bundled up and had the hood on my coat up. The hood between my face and stock made it a challenge to get down behind the tube, which made me realize that 1.5 is too low.

[@ROCMASTA1]

My old man taught me to shoot through absolute co witness. He was an Army veteran in the Vietnam war so, when I bought my first carbine it went from that to lower 1/3. I have been using lower 1/3 ever since. I am eager to try 1.92 on one of my newer builds for lpvo use to see if I like it. Salute to all the VFW's!!! I miss my Pop!

[@chaunceychappelle3265]

That advice was solid for decades. You are in the light, laser, thermal, riser, flip to center era. GWOT is the new Vietnam era.

[@ROCMASTA1]

@chaunceychappelle3265 No, I agree it's just that old habits are hard to break.

[@KennethJoines-th4jk]

Scalarworks 1.93” w/ Aimpoint T2? Perfection. However I do like their 1.73” for ACOG as I still get cheek weld but with a bit more heads up

[@ROCMASTA1]

@@KennethJoines-th4jk is the 1.73 riser only for ACOG's?

[@KennethJoines-th4jk]

I do believe the 1.73 is ACOG specific. And it’s only for the 4x TA31. I bought the 4x many years ago and fell into disuse from the poor eye relief. This mount changed all that. Now my favorite

[@cardboard_shaft]

the flip to center magnifier is just mint, not hanging off the side is greatly appreciated

[@handled99]

I had the flip-to-center mount. Didn't like it. It's in the way. The flip to side is liked much better. It's to the side and out the way.

[@bretc1012]

I think I would like the flip to center… but not willing to give up the back up irons 🫤

[@cardboard_shaft]

@@bretc1012 the micro series comes with back up irons, and for eotech style sights just use offset irons

[@frankholub4673]

Until you're trying to get a NV tube behind your red dot.

[@cardboard_shaft]

@@frankholub4673 it is literally purpose built to do that, and i’ve done it very easily. still having trouble? take the magnifier off, now you have a nice height that makes it easier to use with nods. notice i didn’t say possible, i said easier

[@richardthomas6602]

The lazer was developed to solve the aiming under NVGs issue because iron sights did not cut it. Now that NVG use is common among our adversaries, passive sighting methods became necessarily for survival. The solution was to return to higher sight heights to allow red dots to be aimed while looking through NVGs.

[@rifleshooterchannel208]

Proper LAM usage makes it a non issue when fighting opposition with NODs.

[@ericcicero7045]

Great topic. Application should always influence equipment selection. My "GP/home defense" gun is a red dot on a 1.93" (taking time to memorize dope with height over bore and max point blank theory). For work, my magnified optics sit lower (prone ergonomics) and my low-vis night platform sits at 2.25" (NVG ergonomics). Every "one size fits all" solutions are comprised. Also, armor and pack straps play a role in shouldering. But outside of a few moments hunting for the bump in the night, ergonomics play a significant roll in real world operations

[@johnemmert9012]

1990s Delta guys fought to get their optics lower... Modern Instagram operators want the 2.2'' riser... The vertical head height sounds great and all, but what about prone? What about when you want to push distances. Lower 1/3 or 1.93 seems like a decent compromise to me without causing too many other problems.

[@defilade1066]

Depends on the mission. Higher optics are much much better for CQB applications.

[@rifleshooterchannel208]

@@defilade1066Ironically many Delta guys say that’s not so.

[@somethinganything4864]

@@defilade1066 according to who? Jamey Caldwell, Matt Pranka, Kyle Defoor, Charlie Ross, are all from CAG and they say lower height over bore is better. It's easier to shoot fast and accurate with a weapon system that will give you a proper cheek weld and lower mechanical offset.

[@crash1776]

It's actually easier to shoot prone with a high riser, especially with a helmet on. It's all subjective. You can be just as fast with a high riser as with a low mount. It's a matter of comfort and training. I do CQB for a living and I prefer the 2.26 because it comes straight up to my eye without having to move my head toward the gun to find the dot. Some disagree. Some don't like having to remember offset at close range. It's all subjective.

[@Peterkass235]

It’s easy as heck to shoot tall optics prone, easier in kit to do this than lower optic heights

[@45forall]

Very interesting to see how the attached light on the muzzle is being shaken through the gases from the muzzle brake - time stamp 18:08.(slow motion). Nice video 🎉

[@onpsxmember]

In the AUG scene, some units want it lower to have the Acog and quite flat mounted rds on top to make good use of both. Since I'm not forced by NV or my plates to one particular optic height I stayed with the absolute co-witness since it isn't really bad in any position + 4x magnifier. If need be I can a bit higher on the shoulder and have only a slight nod in my neck. If I lay down I have to come up slightly but the triangular stock shape gives options. It isn't light or low drag to begin with but usable in lots of environments. With the rail I'm already around 3'' from the bore axis. There are lower rail options from Corvus Defensio that also offers more rail space. Overall there should be a lot more cheek riser stuff for ARs and a solid attachment system. EDIT: Excellent video btw. Even including prone position and different builds of rifles and bodies.

[@herknorth8691]

Everything I thought I knew I'm going to have to reconsider now that I have NODs.

[@fabiomiranda74]

Great topic guys, nice video as always!

[@stuartdodson6630]

I like nuance discussions about things that don’t really matter.

[@AAA-qr8yy]

It only doesn’t matter to you if you don’t matter. To people doing things that matter, it matters.

[@joshwright8633]

Me too

[@_Art.Vandelay]

You’re nostalgic for the block 1 from the GWOT. I am nostalgic for the block 1 from COD4. We are not the same.

[@emiliohernandez2790]

Been looking for that good or ok mount..Thats how i found this video...As long as you can consistently get a good picture everytime your good...but figuring it out in the 1st place is the issue

[@TsunTzu]

Fun thing with glasses...pitching your neck that far forward can make it very difficult to actually see through the optic. I really appreciate the 1.9+ range of heights, it's pretty great for a giraffe necked glasses wearer like me. LPVO though? 1.5-1.63.

[@jeffreyfales7343]

1.93 works great for my hurt neck.

[@dtomamerican3471]

Shrug the shoulder to bring the stock and optics to eye for something like a 1/3 co-witness. Matt Pranka with XrayAlpha talks about this. This helps give you good connection to the rifle while not having to krink your neck down

[@delacruzjeffrey]

What a great video. I found my head in an uncomfortable position with absolute co-witness. Might try a higher mount

[@naddaf20]

Very informative video. I keep my red dot lower 1.93 I like to be able to take shots at longer ranges like 100-200 yards knowing where my rounds going to be.

[@A2DaZ210]

What zero are you running on this setup?

[@tiptoez]

Started in basic with the A2 ntch, then went absolute and lower 1/3. Ran the tall unity for a while but went back to lower 1/3.

[@mghegotagun]

UTG scope mounts with their picatinny risers are also very good for testing the waters for cheap since their 30mm scope mounts are actually really low. Their "medium" is about 1.29 high, which becomes 1.79 with a half inch riser, and I really like that setup. Their "high" is about 1.45, which becomes 1.95 with a half inch riser.

[@UpstateReady]

Nice explanation guys. Thank you!

[@2amichaelj]

I wish more mount manufacturers would make 1.7 optic mounts. Lower 1/3 is a little too low for me and 1.93 is a little too high. 1.7 is perfect and you can still utilize irons unlike 1.93.

[@IkfNorCalChamp]

I thought 1.7 was lower 1/3?

[@2amichaelj]

@@IkfNorCalChamp lower 1/3 is like 1.6.

[@Anon-q2x]

Yankee Hill Machine makes rails section risers that would allow you to achieve that.

[@RonnieStanley-tc6vi]

Same same, but different!😂😂😂😂😂. The Interview reference got me.

[@blckandwhtknight]

Great video guys, but it can be summed up quite simply. Up close you want head up with a red dot, out past 50 you want a magnified optic mounted low and comfortable. For a fighting/ general purpose rifle the current best solution is a LPVO mounted at standard height with a red dot mounted on top of, and at the front. Just look at any of the high speed military units and you will see this pop up. Of course for gaming gun weight is critical and everything needs to be matched to the course needs.

[@Fr3d671]

I've got one 16" 5.56 build rockin an LPVO setup with a top mounted red dot, which is like 3.5" above centerline 🍻

[@nathanleonard2245]

this is the way

[@matthewriegner5180]

It's really only an issue when you're looking to build a gpr/go to rifle. All other applications you can build specific and train on it.

[@ChipSpencer123]

I have 1.93 for LVPO with off set red dot. Cheek risers and GBRS Hydra are also of interest to me. Thanks for your video.

[@3991melkoun]

BCM .5” riser is my current setup gets me roughly 2.0” to the rail much nicer for my neck with cqb training

[@malgrendell6]

I'm with Josh, I really like lower 1/3 and 1.93 optics. They give a really nice balance of contact and comfort. Also, they're little easier to use with over the ear hearing protection

[@ramdom_assortment]

I need a high sight on ARs and a thin stock, or my neck hurts. On AKs I can use standard irons and stocks. Also if I do have my head forward and look up with my eye, not only does that hurt my neck, but it makes me feel dizzy. I'm using a red dot with the carry handle mount on a T91 and love it.

[@Hamzat22]

Wow we made a whole circle with the m7 ( back to m14) and now with the height we are back in the 90s.

[@Stab_Knifewind]

Good discussion. I agree with most of this.

[@lennykibbs260]

Excellent presentation..... explains alot to this non expert hobbyist

[@ChrisBell0011]

i thought those bugs at 12:16 were on my screen lol

[@1982rrose]

How about a shooting demo with different hieghts at different ranges, speed vs accuracy.

[@alliwantisfinancialstabili7414]

Sent this video to a friend who's fairly new to AR's and won't stop obsessing over sight height and is constantly badgering me about it. Get lower 1/3, be done. It's really that easy if you're just doing flat range shooting 5.56.

[@hannibalbarca2939]

Agreed, while I’ve mostly moved away from lower 1/3 on dots, it is probably the all around best and safest option, especially for newer to average shooters.

[@austinwitty9760]

@@hannibalbarca2939😅

[@marcelschultz4033]

I experimented a lot with optic height. I think the discussion is oftentimes too focussed on very experienced shooters. There are so many factors that go into this. What is often overlooked is body height or proportions respectively. You cannot shoot tight groups if you are completely cramped behind the optic. You wont get a natural alignment or point of aim this way. Another factor is the type of optic and the weight of the rifle. I found with LPVOs I prefer a more vertical grip angle with da taller height. With red dots I dont care so much and the a2 angle is fine for me. So I think there is no recipe for success. The balance of the rifle, the individuals proportions, eye relieve of the optic all play a big part in the equation. I often read comments like "what optic height is best?" I think this question is fundamentaly flawed. It should always be quoted with "in relation". When you have a long face, long neck and ape arms, you possibly might want a taller optic height than a tiny person with short arms and short neck. But its a different topic compared to the benefits of having a taller mount for a specific use, for example night vision. What is tall enough so that a specific individual might use night vision effectively, is again to a degree based on individual prerequisites. Just my opinion as a 6"4 guy shooting a prism optic at absolute cowitness, top mounted rd sight, stock extension and a magpul moe grip with a bicycle tube on it to make it thicker. Red Dot only rifle is 1,93. Tried the unity mount and thought of it as a bit too much for me. Dont forget that comfort is performance and fun and that outweights small performance benefits in certain scenarios.

[@billydanzz]

Those dragonflies are big enough to shoot mid-air!

[@samduffy7628]

Dang good video

[@MrJayBlackwind]

Deltathirtyfour has the best video on how Optics Height affect your max ordnance and overshooting a far target with a near zero - as well as whats the best zero range for each range. in his example for m855. but obviously you need to apply that ammo speed info into your own calculation.

[@nexthubbins]

❤❤❤❤❤. Liked n commented. So far I use lower 3rd for now. Ipvo’s I forget but base primary ars mounts. Will be switching to better mounts when I know what I really prefer. 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@defyingentropy41]

Feel comfortable: I believe you should have your optics set to the height you anticipate the largest percent of your encounters (Sole depending on the location of your fight). No matter what height you choose there will always be a scenario that you may have to improvise your stance, shooting hold, rifle position, barriers etc. I don't think this day and age we want to breaking our neck with face crunched behind an optic unless forced into a prone shooting. Add all the gear you guys have, gas mask, nods, plate for a fight that lasts for more than 1 hour ugg.

[@Moetown1986]

Good video. For me, 1.7" on magnified optics and 1.93" on red dots.

[@brucewanda9564]

So, what is the actual height over bore? Ballistic charts use that measurement, so does 1./93" = 2.75" over bore?

[@KennethJoines-th4jk]

Scalarworks 1.93” w/ Aimpoint T2? Perfection. However I do like their 1.73” for ACOG as I still get cheek weld but with a bit more heads up.

[@hoosier_tactics]

on my defensive home rifle set up it's a 1.93. on my gpr it's a 1/3 on my scoped rifle it's a close bore axis with a red dot on top for about 1.93

[@tacticalwannabe6450]

YO HENRY, what are the make and model of those sunglasses you're wearing?

[@kanejakejimmy]

Guys please help. Very early GWOT I read about a green beret group that developed a butt stock for their M4s that was oversized downward vertically and sloped forward. They looked very weird, as you can imagine. I can't find any information online about it. They pretty much made it themselves. I do recall they were sold by whoever did the final molding for them. But I've never seen them again.

[@fatheroftheclyde]

It was called the “Tactical DuoStock”.

[@fatheroftheclyde]

It was called the “Tactical DuoStock”.

[@Anon-q2x]

I don't have a particularly tall neck or anything but I find even a lower 1/3 to be uncomfortable on the neck. 556 doesn't have that much recoil so you really don't need a tight shoulder pocket.

[@4theloveofChrist]

As a GWOT infantryman I kinda stick with what I know and as milk toast as it is I prefer the absolute. I run backup flip up irons on all my rifles and I know there's TON's more options out there, but the absolute cowitness is never given me a problem and never thought I needed to change it.

[@tacticaljindo]

Josh - What do you zero your LPVO at with your 1.93 mount? I am used to a 100 yard zero on my lower mounted optics, but the increased height over bore of 1.93 is making me consider a 50/57 yard zero. I typically shoot 2-gun matches and I've debated on whether 1.7 or 1.93 is the right move for me.

[@sluttybutt]

MPBR

[@gb12rulez]

13:47 that poor round just lost in the grass forever unfired 😢

[@freezepop6389]

2.26 on my 11.5 for NVG use

[@556guy4]

There is also 1.7 out there as well. You guys missed that for the lpvo.

[@mrskippingguyonmush]

prone with any optic over lower 1/3rds is just absurd without a cheek riser. Get ready to strain your neck for a stable zero. The skyscraper mounts are great if your job is is cqb with gas masks, passive nods, and minimal awkward positioning. Doing a vtac barricade with a skyscraper is near impossible and is imaginative but hey, those dont exist in real world.

[@crash1776]

As a CQB professional, I find shooting prone with a high riser to be much easier, especially with a helmet. Your cheek should not be the thing keeping the rifle steady, it's just a contact point. Your support hand and your shoulder should be doing most the work. It just takes practice to get used to it. I find the high riser much faster for target acquisition and CQB shooting since the dot comes right to your eye without any other motion or adjustment. But it's all subjective.

[@mrskippingguyonmush]

@@crash1776 Keep rocking on my man. I find any elongated time spent in the prone while looking through an optic with a head floating in space is detrimental to performance. After even only a minute you will begin to affect your accuracy due to the strain. It is definitely subjective. For CQB i understand the affection but.

[@handled99]

I am current LE/SWAT. I tried the Unity Flip-to-center mount for my EOTECH Magnifier along with the Unity Fast 2.26" Riser for my EOTECH EXPS3 during a rifle training day. I also had a Magpul CTR Stock with a SCS Irregulars Cheek riser and in addition experimented with a Larue RISR. I zeroed it at 50, did a bunch of rapid engagement drills, shooting from barricades, VTAC barricades, shooting from the knee, prone, rollover prone. Shooting from 10 yards, 15, 25, 50, 100 yards, etc. Lot of rounds shot, my conclusion: Not a fan of it and dont recommend useless you are a SOF unit whose primarily uses night vision and want to shoot passive (which is what the 2.26" height is for). First of all, you can not use rear iron sights with the EOTECH setup because the magnifier would be in the way and not fully seated in the retracted position. And for a duty gun, iron sights are essential and in my departments policy. Even if iron signts aren't used and the EOTECH is fully retracted, it still "feels, in-the-way" slightly. The flip-to-side feels much better because it "feels, up and out of the way" and maximizes the EOTECHS wide field of view. As for as the 2.26" height, what I found during training is simply even with the cheek riser, you just arent as connected to the gun like you would be a lower 1/3. There is just something, some physics that you just CAN NOT TRAIN around that makes being closer to the bore axis of the gun, more advantageous for rapid engagements. In SWAT we shoot fast and we have to not only be fast but accurate. So accuracy at volume is the name if the game. Im known as one of the top performimg shooters on my team, and I was able to do fine in the drills, but my groupings were not as tight as they were with the lower 1/3rd setup and i concluded it is something that can't be trained around. You just arent as "connected-to-the-gun" (serious competition shooters will know what im talking about) with a 2.26" optic height like you would a lower 1/3rd. No matter how much I train with a 2.26" optic height, I will never be better than what i am able to do with a lower 1/3rd. It's just physics. Thirdly, too much hold over guess work. Yes it is something you can get better at, but it will take a ton of rounds before it's second nature and it will just never feel as natural with a lower 1/3rd since you are much closer to the bore axis. I took the 2.26" Unity risers off my gun and chose not to deplpy it in the field. I think it has its place as a specialty setup for specialist SPECIFICALLY doing nighttime CQB under Night Vision, which what %99 of all gunowners dont do. Other that, 0 advantages, only disadvantages. But again, spend the money on the setup, take a advanced rifle course and try it out yourself. Everyone is different. Im just speaking from my professional experience.

[@crash1776]

Opinions vary. I do CQB for a living as well and I love it. The optic comes right to your eye without having to adjust head and neck to find the dot. It's super fast. You don't have a rock solid cheek weld, but if your other mechanics are solid it's not a factor. Support hand grip, and activated shoulder are far more important than cheek weld. Shooting 5.56, the recoil just isn't a factor, especially running a laser, light and suppressor. But it's different for everyone. It's all subjective. Like everything, change requires adjustment and training.

[@handled99]

@crash1776 Recoil is always a factor. If it wasn't, then every shot would be a key hole. Recoil mitigation is a big skill when shooting for accuracy at volume. Run some drills and look at your contemporaries targets. Some have good groupings in the A-Zone after for example rapidly shooting 8 shots in 1.5 seconds, while others are getting C zone hits or hit are climbing. The reason is they aren't controlling the gun properly under Recoil to ensure all A zone hits. And when you increase the distance? It's game over if you don't have good Recoil mitigation skill, some guys will flat out miss the target trying to shoot fast while maintaining accuracy. Cheek weld is extremely important. My experience comes from being a trained sniper. Any long rifleman knows cheek weld and the pressure you apply is essential in getting accurate shots. Same applies with 556. Again, you can train and do well with a optic riser, just won't be optimum. And I am not talking CQB. I don't know what my engagement will be, it would be 5 yards, or 200 yards plus. I don't determine the place and location of my gunfight, suspects do. And I wan't the best setup to use that I am most skilled with. If I was under NVGs doing nighttime time CQB, then yes, I'll use the 2.26" mount. But how many people are doing nighttime raids shooting passive other than Tier 1 units and top caliber federal SWAT teams?

[@AAA-qr8yy]

You lost all credibility when you said the irons you will never need to use are necessary.

[@handled99]

@AAA-qr8yy 1st, I can care less about what some unvetted untrained rando thinks. Secondly I never said you would never need iron sights dummy. Learn to ready dummy and save yourself the embarrassment.

[@handled99]

​@AAA-qr8yy one time I was doing a SWAT protection detail for a stadium event and my EOTECH for some reason went out. Was unable to diagnose the issue mid deployment, thus I transitioned to iron sights for the remainder of my shift. Irons are certainly essential.

[@tylertapp131]

Personally i dont think anyone will ever agree on this, UNLESS they come from similar backgrounds or mindsets. I came up on lower mounts and had amazing success with them, but once i got into the higher mounts, trained with them, got familiar with them. FOR ME, its a no brainer, i enjoy the higher mounts, its much more relaxed and very capable once you understand the things that come with it, hight over bore, how they perform at different distances and all that. That all bein said, my main caliber is 5.56, so recoil management is easier along with the rigs i normally use, are heavier with all the bells and whistles for day and night shooting abilities. My go to is the unity fast lpvo mount that sits at 2.05 with an offset dot. Sorry for being so long winded, god bless from ole Carolina. 🤙

[@DavidK2007]

I have a long neck, and do equal parts shooting standing and prone/leaning against seats through trucks. 1.7-1.93

[@politicalpolarbear]

I've converted to taller height mounts and honestly, I'm not going back. Not having to bend my neck to see through the optic and have my earpro sometimes get knocked by the stock is simply too valuable. yeah it makes my ar15 look ghetto, but I'm much more comfortable shooting it. I zero'ed to 50 yards to try and minimize the offset.

[@AJohnSmith]

Depends on your neck length. Next topic.

[@CA.0verview]

15:20 if you guys get rid of vert grips on your carbines you’ll stop pulling shots biased to the left.

[@EliasPergande]

Watch delta34’s videos on this. He describes this concept way better that anyone else I’ve ever seen

[@KretinD]

Lower 1/3 for use with magnifiers and 1.93 for just red dots

[@jsinclairinthe919]

What is the best height for 9mm PCC USPSA competition where you won't be shooting out past 25yrds?

[@msquared9605]

I really like a simple lower 1/3rd. So far, I refuse to try a higher riser cause I’m afraid I’ll like them

[@immikeurnot]

I've resisted for a long time because good mounts are expensive!

[@Jimmy.O.]

I got experience with both. Lower ⅓(around 1.70) is better for most types of shooting. 2.26 is only meaningful for gas mask use and micro RDS.

[@HotRod7mm]

My work rifle has a 2.72” height mount

[@cityrice5]

I'm going to patent a 20" mount so we can accurately 80's hip fire

[@redbluehot]

how about the gbrs 291 optic...

[@swynty777]

Yall got a discount code? Pls😢

[@chaoticcaninejb]

Back then performance was based on equipment available where as now some of those reasons aren't making the benefits in performance

[@douglascuvillyed.s8211]

Lower 1/3 for primary 2+" for piggyback

[@LMTran]

4:20 "Good contact with a butt... stock"

[@RamAlambaDingDong]

I know it's an odd mention... but CBRN consideration

[@flopus7]

Possibly the least important consideration.

[@therulesaredifferent8280]

7:37 Henry: "y tho"

[@dwurgy.]

1.93 for LPVO and 2.26 for Dots

[@johnl-cz2qg]

You guy's forgot the best height which is 2.91!

[@nathanleonard2245]

the high rise optic does not affect the trajectory near as much as u were explaining...not at all...heads up shooting is by far the best when in the upright position and no it doesn't make u inconsistent. Unless you're some tiny fella.

[@two23rem]

1.93" inside the home, 1.73" around the house, 1.54" with any type of magnifier.

[@ddigre01]

Carry handles are a vibe, I don't need to pay 400 beans for risers to achieve the same result, I just do because I'm an idiot and hate money

[@Casey_7140]

I prefer to use cheaper mounts from Amazon as a mock up.

[@stevinoname]

you guys are like the petapixel chris nichols and jordan drake of the gun world

[@johngrant276]

Ive got a long neck and co witness is awkward. 1.93 is money for me. Though in prone, i don't like it.

[@sickboy4029]

lower 1/3rd supremacy

[@cardboard_shaft]

😂😂😂

[@jordanpohl6856]

Stoner had the sight height right the first time. Fight me.

[@kimozab3]

Lower 1/3 doesn't do it for me. Switched to 1.93 and it's heaven. I have one with a 2.26 optic but it kinda feels off for me. To each their own, I suppose.

[@philwalter1058]

The idea of "the optic is too high, and my chin weld is hurting recoil control" being followed by "the optic is too low I need to only put the tip of the stock into my shoulder pocket" is fascinating.

[@ExplorinInTheWoods]

You don’t see anyone at 3gun matches running sky scraper mounts.

[@depthcharge126]

@@ExplorinInTheWoodsyou don’t see anyone at 3gun matches running LAMs either…

[@ExplorinInTheWoods]

@@depthcharge126 a lot of 2/3gun matches around bragg you do

[@MikeBobby-l7o]

I really dislike that graphic with the "arc" of the projectile. It's functionally what happens to the impacts because of the optic over bore height, but it's very misleading. I have met some really educated experienced shooters that didn't understand this because they learned from old graphics like that. The bullet NEVER rises and arcs up and then down again. The bullet simply flies strait out and down, never up, basic physics. The perception of it arcing up and then down again is only because of the angle from the sights or optic to the barrel itself.

[@SS-tr5ru]

Unity 2.26 gang. Tall for heads up. Built in iron sights when you need to go prone.

[@infitada]

9.3”

[@austinplatt8011]

I would like to preface what I am about to say with this, I always appreciate this channels knowledge and it's ability to convey it in a way that makes sense. However, I grow tired of constantly hearing the statements about things such as a topic like this, being specific to Spec ops or something along those lines. "I don't think it's a regular soldiers problem" is the statement I'm referring to. It's not just from this channel either that is not what I'm trying to convey. Having a heads-up shooting position is not something that only special forces needs to think about, it is advantageous to EVERYONE. Locking your bodies structure does not yield itself to economy of motion principles, it also doesn't lend itself to situational awareness. The gate keeping needs to stop, and I don't believe that is the intention of you gentleman at all I just use that fraze for lack of a better one that I couldn't think of.

[@caseybrown5183]

The only thing no one has mentioned so far - red dot at absolute turns into a big ghost ring rear sight if the battery dies. No need for rear iron. This works great for medium to small people at defensive distances and with fixed or flip up front sights.

[@studentofthe556]

Unless the optic is mounted on a carry handle mount, 1.93 is king!

[@Ben_not_10]

Personally I think the key problem with low mounts is modern stances. The M16/AR15s ergos are still very much rooted in the old Blade style shooting stance harkening back to the 19th century. Even if you don’t chicken wing it, you’re not stretching the neck as far with a blade stance as you are with a squared stance. While the AR is very much adaptable to the square shooting stance, its layout doesn’t allow for a cheek weld without having to stretch the neck. Shorter stocks will give you that flexibility but then you’re cramming onto the gun. It’s an odd problem created by the situation that body armour has to present a square front to provide the best protection.

[@TheSafkan]

Who told you any of this bullshit?

[@Ben_not_10]

@@TheSafkan You are not worth another word, else I’d call you a knave.

[@johnwallroff5918]

You're completely exaggerating a normal 1.4 (Co-witness) vs a 1.93 mount. The difference in height of the optic is1/2 of an INCH!!!!... Which DOES make a big difference in cheek weld but DOES NOT in the pocket of your shoulder. Bring the gun up to your face!!! Moving the stock up 1/2 an inch in your shoulder pocket is NOT going to make the amount of difference you are showing in your video, you're exaggerating. A proper check weld is important.

[@nahbrahhh]

2.26" is all fun and games until you go prone.

[@forkthepork]

I personally can't stand co-witness. Way too much obscuring of the target. Lower third or nothing at all for me.

[@GraizenBrann]

🔫 🔭 Telescope tripod height is the future 🤡

[@granitejeepc3651]

depends on if your wearing a gas mask or other type of protective gear