M*CARBO Brotherhood

First Look! New SUB-2000 Hinge Optic Mount - Prototype


#499

1/3 if anything but overall if I go red dot, looks like I’ll go with Red Lion which still isn’t a great idea but to be real, this won’t be used in some crazy tactical firefight so speed is not key. MIdwest is great if I didn’t have to keep the recoil tied back but this kinda defeats the entire purpose of the gun. Kills all slim backpack carries. MIne’s in a Camelbak right now and there’s nothing that this could comfortably be carried in besides tossing it in the back like the video which again brings me to the start of this post, not realistic. Cool concept, not where I thought it was going. Seriously, it has the potential to go flush up but instead pops from the side like a random Alfalfa’s hair.


#500

I would prefer a co-witness, but either if fine.

Will it be available for pre -order??:grin::grin:


#501

We’re not doing a Pre-Order but we will do a private release here in the forum with a hidden link on the website first for a couple days then release to everyone after that.


#502

@Aravena the only down side to a red-lion forend, got one on my gen1, love it. BUT works with a red dot. works with a “scout” style scope. does not work with any normal riflescope unless you put a magnifier behind it, and its still special LOL good thing about this mount, that i see, it moves the optic back over the receiver. I could run the ACOG or the Burris AR332 prism solo…
like in this pic, it works but its not co-wittnessed, and its too cluttered for my liking…



yes the red-lion is infinitely index-able, and rifle still folds compact, but I had to use a GG&G cantilever mount to get the magnifier back over the receiver. (eye relief)
FTS mount would make it so much simpler and less involved. plus if you add the cost of the Red-lion, + the cost of the GG&G cantilever, FTS from MCARBO , be a lot more cost effective…


#503

No participation contest for beta testers like we had before?


#504

@ChrisNelson Oh please, please, pleeeeeze :pray:


#505

None of those things I said I was doing. More for convenience and change of forend. Like I said, it’s not that great but in the end, if I want a red dot it’s no different than taking it on/off everytime I care to use it at that point. Reality is, there still won’t be a good ideal mount out there, MIdwest is the closest but that while typing back the recoil is just that, eh… to make you question the price and overall need.


#506

Absolute co-witness please.


#507

Chris, the design looks good so far. I like the things you have done to reduce weight. My only concern is whether the mounts makes it more bulky and difficult to pack. It’s hard to tell from the video.I use the Voo Doo tactical bag and have made my modifications such that it still fits in the bag. Thanks! Scott


#508

As an educated guess, it would be wider by the amount your optic is tall plus a little extra for the top hinged part of the mount. 1/2 inch would be a conservative amount to add on top of the extra optic distance.


#509

Absolute cowitness has my vote


#510

Absolute has my vote.

mcarbo - looks like an opportunity to have an optional riser to be included for folks who want a 1/3 cowitness.


#511

AWESOME! Deployment demonstration video proves that you have met my expectations.

I will be happiest with .83 over bore. Thank you for including height over bore with the description 'cause I can’t cowitness 'cause the irons will be removed as soon as this mount proves itself.

To be clear, I favor the extended targeting utility from the closer-to-bore mount option. The excessive MI mount height is the reason I never bothered trying to fit that system to my philosophy of use.

As the brotherhood has already suggested, producing both ways is your ideal. Along with making almost everybody happy, it also affords you the opportunity to offer replacement rail sections for folks as their needs and priorities are defined/determined. I want the “absolute” or .83" option.

Thanks @ChrisNelson!


#512

1/3 co-witness. The iron sights are still too low to comfortably use.


#513

I’m already avoiding the rear sight for close-in; I look over it and just use the front sight. I’m thinking that means I don’t want absolute co-witness - I would use an either/or solution. Maybe the mounting plate could have slots, or extra holes, to control the height? Also, I would like to ensure that the rail section is long enough for the Holosun I already own, or else a way to swap out the rail piece for whatever sight I might want to mount there.


#514

Lower 1/3 co-witness due to low sight height sir! thank you


#515

I change my mind, I think the 1/3 co-witness makes more sense than the absolute co-witness. Maybe it should be sold with riser options as previously stated.


#516

[quote="ChrisNelson, post:1

1/3 co-witness for me


#517

As I think about it, similar to the folding rear sight, have the customer select when ordering. Offering both using the same basic design but the thickness of the Picatinny rail on the mount will vary the height for absolute or lower 1/3. You can always add rail height but you cannot easily take it away.


#518

I think an option to select your choice of riser at checkout makes the most sense.