The Gun Thread

AK have enough weight around the handguard that the difference really isn’t all that noticeable. Going from irons to a handguard-mounted optic was pretty seamless in my experience, it’s to my mind the most sensible place to mount an optic.

Even with other rifles the big adjustment going from an optic mounted further back to one mounted forward is more in your head positioning than anything with the weight. Throwing weight out on the end like a bayonet will require you to compensate but optics aren’t heavy enough and aren’t moving out far enough to require that much extra thought. You should train one way for simplicity’s sake, but I don’t think an average shooter would be all that thrown off with a switch.

Any time you push any weight and bulk past the center of gravity, which is almost always around the receiver, you start messing with weapon balance. It does matter especially shooting at longer distances. Part of it is that it tends to cause a shooter to shift their weapon in a certain direction on where the shift in the center of gravity is greatest. It is almost entirely an instinctual sub-conscious adjustment. The other issue is fatigue. The closer to the center of gravity the less you have to hold up with the outstretched arm.

While it can also affect positioning it also affects how you hold the weapon and tends to pull in certain directions when fired based on weight distribution around any part of the weapon.

The further out you are shooting or the more precision you are aiming for the more this matters.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Mar 4th 2020 at 10:31:42 AM

I can’t imagine placing the optic over the handguard changes an AK’s center of gravity to any noticeable degree again given the way weight is already distributed on the rifle. We’re talking about a weapon that already has a center of gravity that’s pretty far forward in a lot of cases and mounting it there is also advantageous for users who were trained on an AK to begin with because it mimics the position of the irons.

I’ll also point out that forward-mounted optics really aren’t uncommon. Usually you see them for close combat, but a lot of game rifles use forward mounted telescopic sights so the hunter can keep their peripheral vision open.

Pyro: the aiming device you usually see these days is the PEQ-15, it’s got visible/IR lasers and an IR illuminator.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 4th 2020 at 8:43:10 AM

The old Steyr Scout and the Tactical actually seem to usually mount their scopes forward, on the barrel, rather than in the traditional manner befitting a bolt-action rifle.

Thanks, now I know what its name is.

They’re both built from Jeff Cooper’s scout rifle concept, which specified a forward mounted optic.

Anyway, I am taking from the debate that Tuefel would prefer the side mount if he's talking about the AK specifically?

Edited by TheWildWestPyro on Mar 4th 2020 at 8:54:56 AM

I also prefer the side mount because I don't like my optic being that far forward

Theoretically, for an optic with unlimited eye relief, mounting further back allows for faster acquisition of the reticle and more accurate aimed fire, at the cost of your peripheral vision, while mounting forward makes it harder to get on the reticle but gives you better peripheral vision. It’s a question of preference, ultimately.

I’m most familiar with the Trijicon VCOG, I usually have it mounted just short of the front of the receiver on an AR.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 4th 2020 at 10:37:27 AM

Having never getting to use any accessories on my rifle, I totally forgot that they too have weight. XP

They don't usually put stuff on the K2?

OK, did some checking, the ROK military still adheres to the 1980s small arms concept that carbines aren't appropriate for general infantry.

Edited by TheWildWestPyro on Mar 5th 2020 at 12:31:06 PM

I only used K2 in basics.

As for M4...well, some KATUSA from my brigade once stole an ACOG few months before I entered so all KATUS As are permanently banned from any accessories.

Shame.

Forward mounted optics along something like the handguard are uncommon. The vast majority of optics are mounted over some part of the receiver or as close to it as they can get, especially for assault rifles. Because as I already noted that is where the center of gravity is located in the vast majority of rifle type firearms. It definitely pushes the center of gravity forward even on an AK given the fact that the receiver on an AK is easily heftier than the handguard and barrel combined especially with a loaded magazine in place. A little forward of the receiver is not too bad but forward over the handguard is pushing the center of gravity further forward.

You get some leeway with some bolt action rifles because their center of gravity tends to be a bit forward of the receiver partly because of the added weight of usually longer and often heavier barrels and sometimes fairly long handguards. That and you tend to use a bolt action rifle differently than you use an assault rifle. I have seen Steyr Scouts with scopes over the receiver as well as forward of the barrel. Given the Steyr really isn't intended to mount large optics or other heavy attachments its not as much of an issue but you still have to be aware of how it affects balance.

This is also one of the things that make rear-loading bull pups feel kind of weird in that that their center of gravity is further back from where you usually place your hands.

The more weight you add to a rifle the more you have to be aware of where you are placing the weight. When you start talking about adding pounds of weight to a weapon with multiple accessories it definitely matters. Especially when each piece has a different weight and physical bulk. Again the more precision your after or the longer the range you intend to fire at the more it matters.

Forward mounted optics really aren’t as uncommon as you’re making them out to be, nor is the effect that pronounced.

You pointed it out yourself, optics just aren’t that heavy. We’re not talking about shifting the entire operating mechanism, it’s ounces at best. The average shooter won’t even be able to notice the difference, and especially on rifles which are already rear-heavy (like bolt-actions) the center of gravity really isn’t moving much. The center of gravity is such on most rifles that a forward scope isn’t going to be able to move it far enough out to seriously affect the overall balance of the rifle in practical terms.

Scout and EER scopes are both very common in hunting, and the handguard or forward has been an accepted place to mount AK optics for decades. You even see it in competitive shooting, for example with how common long cantalever mounts are. If you’re using a forward mounted scope with many other attachments then you might have to be conscious of balance issues, but that’s more a problem of overloading your rifle to begin with.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 5th 2020 at 12:46:36 PM

Forward mounted optics are uncommon to the point they are still somewhat novel. The default mounting on the vast majority of all rifles is over or very near the receiver out of the box and is typically referred to as conventional mounting. Most forward-mounted optics are custom mounts or on niche rifles such as the Scout Rifle concept. You are grossly overstating how often forward mounting is used.

I said nothing about optics weight, only that the Steyr Scout Rifle is not intended to really use heavy optics. The very concept of the rifle is a lightweight rifle which meant lightweight often smaller scopes or even no scope at all. It wasn't expected to do work like a Remington 700 but more for middle ground type work, like a Guide Gun. And yes most guide guns mount their optics over the receiver unless the action prohibits it. Which is only on some examples especially lever guns with an external hammer whose spur tends to push forward a bit. Even then they tend to try and mount it as close to the receiver as they can get.

You are not talking two or three ounces. Your are talking eight to ten ounces and yes that matters. Most commonly used hunting scopes are around a full pound before you add in mountings weight. The smaller ones usually used for shorter range work are about half that and the large long-range scopes tend to be closer to two-plus lbs. You are easily talking more than a couple of ounces. Even the holographic sight magnifiers are around half a pound give or take a couple of ounces excluding their mountings. Any scopes with electronics unsurprisingly add even more weight.

The forward mount was not ever commonly accepted on AK's even using cantilever mounts. That and for decades the most common optics mount for any AK was the side rail which was mounted on the receiver on the left-hand side putting the scope over the said receiver or over with a side offset. A casual look at the history of such weapons proves the point quite easily. Even modern examples mount them over the receiver by preference using more modern rail systems.

The preferred mount for precision, target, hunting, sniping, assault, carbines, and competition guns mount their scopes regardless of mount type over the receiver section or as close to it as they can get. Even rifles designed for Olympic shooting mount the primary optic over the receiver section because it does matter where you put it. Foward mounting is pretty uncommon and typically a niche requirement, used on a niche rifle, or user customization.

The vast majority of mounting puts the heavier elements as near the receiver as possible and the lighter elements can be mounted further forward like laser sites or various grips. Adding any weight to a rifle means you have to be conscious of the amount of weight and possible impact on balance and account for it accordingly. Where that weight sits and how much, does matter.

It also matters what sort of ranges you're going to be firing at. At about 100 meters it isn't that big of a deal unless you're going for high precision. At 300 meters you will start to notice anything possibly affecting your accuracy. At 500 meters plus it will affect your shooting. Recoil affects all weight and pushes on that weight and pushes in various directions with varying degrees of force depending on how much weight and where said attachments are. A shooting position also matters. Standing is where balance is most import followed by kneeling. Sitting and prone it is less important but can still impact shooting.

One of the biggest tricks for modern assault rifles is balancing the location of all the increasing number of addons and part of the drive to try and create all in one package. You almost never mount optics or heavier mounts forward of the receiver unless you have no choice. Even then with items like grenade launchers they put it under the weapon for better balance.

Doing things like bracing, using bipods, and shooters practicing with the mountings attached can help reduce the negative impact but you can't ignore the possible impact.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Mar 5th 2020 at 7:20:12 AM

Sure, there’s impact, but you’re making it sound as if it might make the weapon unusable rather than being an extremely minor change. It’s a minor enough change that it can be done with very little real impact on the usability of the weapon.

And sure, it’s not as common as the traditional method, but it’s common enough. You see scout scopes very frequently in hunting, and like I said lots of competition shooters do the same thing. You probably wouldn’t do it on a fighting rifle, but that’s not really what it’s for.

I’ll also point out that historical examples of this style for the AK are common. For example, the Cuba one linked earlier. This is more due to the design of the AK which naturally has sights and mounting points further forward.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 5th 2020 at 6:08:44 AM

Nowhere did I even come close to saying it would be unusable, don't put words in my mouth. I pointed out it can affect your accuracy and under what circumstances. I have pointed out more than once now what those circumstances are especially when firing at increasingly longer ranges or looking to achieve high degrees of precision. Pointing out it affects accuracy is nowhere near saying it will be unusable.

No, the forward mount is not common or really seen in increasing numbers anywhere. They are not anywhere near to being popular on hunting rifles or competition shooting by any measure. They are rare in both fields and favored by a few. Almost no one among the competition shooting scene uses forward-mounted optics. You only have to take a look at the shooter's rifles from numerous competitions to see that preferences are almost universally the over receiver-type mountings. Same for the common rifles with scopes carried by hunters. Scout Rifles are one of the few examples where they are common but that falls under a niche rifle, not common use. You can use Scout Rifles for hunting but again they are not a common sight for hunting.

Speaking of Cuban AK's with non-soviet standard optics, last I checked they mount it just behind the handguard as in as close to the receiver as possible not anywhere over the forward part of the handguard like on rifles like the Steyr. They are still keeping it towards the rear portion of the weapon close to its original center of gravity. However, that is not a historical example but a fairly recent one.

If you want to talk about the historical rifles the older rifles were all Soviet-made rifles which mean side mount rails for what few had optics the norm was no optics. Even then their armaments tended to have whatever you could lay hands on or whatever was in the warehouse the Soviets wanted to clear out quality until they normalized an organized military body. The Soviets and later the Russians had been using side-mounted scopes since WWII. It was only the more recent decades they started using newer rail systems and even then demonstrate a very clear preference for mounting over the receiver.

The facts as they are is that putting weight forward of your rifles center of gravity can undeniably affect your accuracy at range or when you are attempting to achieve a high degree of precision. The further forward it is the more it can affect your accuracy. You can take steps to lessen the impact but it is still going to play a role in your shooting whether you want it to or not. It is also a solid undeniable fact that forward mount is a very uncommon mounting in pretty much all fields being an uncommon exception.

Steyr Scouts can push out to 500-600yds with a forward mounted telescopic optic.

And again, there are far weightier things attached to the end of the rifle. If you can maintain accuracy with a 8oz PEQ-15 or 1lbs+ suppressor on the end of your rifle, why wouldn’t you be able to maintain accuracy with a similarly-weighted optic? You’d need to put on a lot more weight than that to compromise your shooting in any meaningful way.

I see scout scopes pretty regularly while hunting in my area, and you only need to google the term to see that while they’re not insanely popular they’re not exactly uncommon either.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 5th 2020 at 7:47:50 AM

You may see a few but a general lack of popularity is pretty much the definition of uncommon. A few hunters may like them but it is still an unusual sight to see on a hunting rifle. To be fair most hunters game is taken around 200 yards so it shouldn't be that much of an issue at all for a hunting rifle.

The Steyr Scout in its original form firing 7.62mm NATO is about 300-400 meters for its effective range. Some of the other chambering offerings could quite handily push that further but the 7.62mm variant is by far the most common and the rifle was originally built for that round.

As for the PEQ units, it's pretty much never mounted that far forward as the only mounting for pretty obvious reasons. If you are just mounting the PEQ you usually side mount closer to the receiver typically on the right-hand side of the weapon. Pretty much every time they are mounted they almost always include a grip, an optic over the receiver, which puts more weight to the rear, and other attachments spaced a little further back and on different points of the rifle around rails of the handguard. Putting around a half lb to a pound+ of optic further back definitely helps counterbalance anything mounted further forward. The flashlight mounts are usually pretty light at about 4-5 oz or less. Thank god for LED lights.

Eo-Tech sights are surprisingly heavy at around lb plus another half-pound or more if they mount a magnifier. ACOG type sights are also kind of hefty at about lb for the most commonly used. Even the smaller optics weigh close to the same as the PEQ and mounted further back helps balance the rifle out. Adding the grip helps counter the added front weight which is why they add the grip in that configuration in the first place. I pointed out earlier one of the concerns of adding all this kit was making sure it was properly balanced as possible. If you have to leave something off you change the layout on the rails as much as possible.

But balancing various pieces of kit is not the same as just mounting one-piece kit of kit. Its why you have to have some additional consideration to your mountings if you're just going to be placing one item without something to possibly balance it out.

As for assault rifles with that setup, they aren't exactly going to be doing much in the way of precision shooting past 300 meters with an M-16 or M-4 kitted out with that gear. Precision shooting with that is usually done at shorter ranges. This is why the DMR made a sort of come back with the US military in more recent years.

If we start adding supporting gear like bi-pods with proper bracing it becomes a lot less of concern as it helps support and stabilizes the weapon a lot better. Sort of a fan of the Gripod for that reason.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Mar 5th 2020 at 10:51:32 AM

Interesting, all this. So the Aimpoint's actually lighter than it looks compared to an EOTech. I take that's why the military prefers the Aimpoints over the older ACOG and the holosights. US law enforcement tends to like holosights, it seems.

Checking on the Cubans◊ and checking out this article on AK optic mounting (which inspired me to query to begin with), it looks like the Cubans have decided to mount their scopes right on where the irons would be.

Apparently that scope in question is a domestic product, as the Cubans have been busy trying out their own arms manufacturing due to the continued embargo. IIRC they've still got little arms plants on the island, for producing their own Makarovs and rifles and mostly small arms stuff, really.

Edited by TheWildWestPyro on Mar 5th 2020 at 9:01:05 AM

You frequently see PEQ units mounted pretty far out. Here’s a Ranger with one basically as far out on the rail as you could put it: [1]◊

If he’s able to shoot effectively with an 8oz PEQ that far out on the rifle, do you think it would be that much more difficult to shoot with a 10oz forward mounted optic? Notice the heavier stock, which balances out the forward distribution of attachments. I genuinely can’t imagine a forward mounted scope, even a heavy one, compromising someone’s shooting to the degree you’re describing.

Scout scopes are common enough that I see them pretty much every time I hunt with locals. They’re not the dominant method but they’re common enough, since most game around here comes in groups and is fairly aggressive hunters like to keep their field of vision open.

I can’t speak to the whole country, but most LE departments in my area (including mine) issue rifles with LPVOs. Unmagnified sights are probably more common with urban departments.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 5th 2020 at 9:14:22 AM

Understandable, considering the nasty combo of criminals with easily available body armor + SWAT teams needing more attention + armed types do like grabbing civilians as human shields. That sort of scenario.

Doing some checking, it looks like the forward mount is really a thing for AKs and certain types of bolt-action rifles. Ain't seeing any ARs with a forward mount despite having very, very sexy rear sights.

I think it's ultimately a matter of personal preference, though. Do you want a bigger FOV or better long-range engagement? Like you said, that's the question for forward vs receiver mount respectively.

Something that might interest both ya fellas, by the way. Russian Special Forces posing for a photo with their AKs, presumably during a standard fire drill. Check out the guys on the left.◊

Edited by TheWildWestPyro on Mar 5th 2020 at 9:18:48 AM

It’s more that this is a rural area so the ranges involved are expected to be longer. At least that’s the reasoning I usually hear presented, though I’m not sure I fully buy it.

I’m certainly not complaining, my department issues 1-8x28 VCOGs which are seriously excellent if a little excessive for the task.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 5th 2020 at 9:33:54 AM

They're probably all thinking about plains shootin' and hunting lawbreakers through the fields and all that. A very romantic image to them, yes, but probably not the most realistic one.

Oh, and I got a closer look at the Cuban scope. Here's Raul Castro and some North Korean officers with what I think is a standard Cuban AKM◊.

As you can see, the Cubans have excellent taste and prefer the lighter bakelite mags. But they contrast that with very dark wood◊, as you can see here, dark enough that you can't tell if it's genuine or synthetic furniture.

The thing about Cuban AKMs is that most of them are directly from the Soviets, but they've got a good amount of East German AKMs and North Korean Type 68s lying around that are still in service, I believe. They also have Czech vz.58s, but those are for the militia.

Edited by TheWildWestPyro on Mar 5th 2020 at 9:35:08 AM

It’s not that there aren’t wide open spaces, officers just don’t really ever find themselves in a position to shoot across said spaces. The legal requirements to use deadly force mean most UOF, deadly or otherwise, happens in a situation the officer has already inserted themselves into. The only scenario I can imagine might involve long range shooting is some kind of hostage or barricade situation, but those are pretty rare.

Wrong thread for that discussion though.

Well, thanks for the extra info. Oh, and in my little digging I found this on the AR-10's wikipedia entry:

So that's an interesting little story about the rifle. Generally, the Cuban Revolution is associated with the Garand, which was the favorite weapon of the guerrillas, but FALs and AR-10s definitely showed up.

The Bay of Pigs Invasion had the Cubans almost entirely armed with Czech vz.52/57 SKS-style rifles, but militiamen used Belgian FALs imported after the US arms embargo.

Edited by TheWildWestPyro on Mar 5th 2020 at 10:04:35 AM