Kind of a bitch to mount a scope to reach out to 700m isn't it thought?
Not really all that hard to do. Though a good shooter really doesn't need optics for that range, at least to hit. To properly identify the target, different story.
Easy solution: don't scope it and still shoot accurately out there.
Yup, though one of mine (early Fed Ord) is usually scoped, the other (M1A Loaded) usually wears just irons. That may change though, but the M1A will get a Brookfield style mount and a Leupold Mark 4 scope.
I wouldnt call an AR durable
Its got a long well documented history of problems
That hasn't been my experience. Though I'm no great espoused gun expert, I'll wager I have a bunch more experience than said "experts" in real world experience with "AR's". Yes, I currently own a few of them. But, I've been shooting them since 1972, and you've been paying for the ammo (taxes). I personally think the experts are wrong. Figure over 35 years experience with the "AR" in real world use. The problems with the AR-15 were caused by a long line of BS and bad misconceptions. They're like every other gun, they need occasional cleaning. They really don't need to be spotless either. And, using the wrong powder in the ammo can cause problems. In other words, they are just as subject to "operator failure" as any other system.
That history of documented problems exists. I can expand on that, and will, if need be. Suffice it to say, there's also a long well documented history of the things that were done to fix those problems. And they were done mostly before 1970. Most, if not all, of the problems were due to indifference, denial, lies and cheapness by government members. Robert McNamara and his idiot "whiz kids" should have been dragged into the street and shot over it.
That said, my experience with others using AR-10's is this. They weren't fully developed to get the flaws out. They have reliability issues that are largely caused by the magazines. They break down easily. Some of that has been fixed. So, they are an accurate rifle, and mount optics well. So, they make a decent distance gun, at least in theory. Give me a year, and I can tell you for sure what I think. I'm building my son an AR-10 in 308/7.62 and myself one in 6.5x47 Lapua. We're looking for different distances, so that's why 2 different calibers. And. yeah, I do know what real accurate rifles are, I've got some boltguns that would make people's jaws drop, accuracy wise.
So, my choice is the M14 type platform. And, by the way, forged isn't always better than cast, contrary to what's out there online. Some Springfield's are OK, others not so much. Mine is one of the better ones.
There are quite a few scope mounts that will work well with the M14. As long as they work on the 3 point design, its pretty foolproof. The only one I know is not optimal is the springfield armory inc. version. Aluminum and steel don't play well together in that role.
I've scoped my Smith Enterprise with an A.R.M.S. #18 to test loads. It works, but honestly I always shot better with the NM sights that are on it.
Edit: I changed out the NM front sight with a standard GI . I just couldn't get a focus on that knife blade.
I've gotten a Springfield type mount to work OK, though I'd never buy another one. Pat is right, aluminum mount on a steel receiver just doesn't play well. Next one is going to be a Brookfield type mount. They're out there, they aren't cheap. Cheap doesn't work so good in this case, just like a scope.
And, M1911, add another person you know that has successfully scoped an M14 clone. It isn't always easy, but it has been done.
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
