MikeFoley Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I got one of the new 30mm TR24 scopes, and I love it. I ordered the LaRue LT135-30mm at the advice of someone else who has this setup. The 135 is designed so that you can put Magpul BUS under the rear of the scope, and puts the bore to reticle at 3 inches. I always thought that 2.5 inches was more ideal since it flattens out the performance from muzzle to 300. The eye relief of this scope is much shorter than the previous version. I am using Troy BUIS, so I don't need that much height, but it is nice that you don't have to crawl down on the rifle to see it. After a few presentations, it comes up on target every time. It is high, about 1/2inch higher than my Aimpoints sit. I am pretty sure I need to phone LaRue and see if the LT-104-30mm is what I actually need. The JBM ballistics calculator really favors 2.5 over 3. Anyone have any experience with this? Any thoughts about 3 inches being too high? It just seems dramatically different than what I am used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyH Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Hey Mike, I like & use the LT-104 on my rifles. The cheek weld matches perfect for me & presentations are the same every time. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadeslade Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Yes, you want the LT-104 Mount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFoley Posted July 12, 2009 Author Share Posted July 12, 2009 Thanks fellas. I am going to call them tomorrow and get the 104. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grywlfbg Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Hmm. Well I just sent my LT-104 back to LaRue to swap it for a 135. I shoot a Burris XTR 1-4 and when doing presentations I was getting some black along the top of the scope. Tried my buddy's Meopta with the same mount and it did the same thing so it's not the scope. I guess that my cheek bones must be larger or lower than other people's. I also have a lot of trouble when trying to shoot uphill when prone. I did some preliminary math and the extra .43" didn't seem to make much difference in ballistics calcs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00bullitt Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 I prefer the LT135 for 3 gun. If it were fro a precsion rifle to shoot past 500 I would opt for the 104. I have no problems with my zero or ballistics with the LT135. Some folks prefer the 104. For 3 gun its more a preference of body stature and how you mount the rifle. I mount the rifle very inboard of the clavicle instead of in the pocket of the shoulder like most people and the higher mount lends to a faster sight picture for me. The 104 requires me to lay in behind the scope. But some folks are different in body structure and neck height. Its a matter of preference. It was desinged for a scope to clear the AN-PEQ infrared designator on a DMR or SPR type AR rifle platform for the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFoley Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 (edited) I can mount either pretty well after about 3 presentations, it doesn't seem to matter, but when I mount it fast, I am pushing it up and can see inside the top of the scope. I did the ballistics calc using a 50 or 200 yard zero and it was way low at 300. I used a 100 yard zero and it was flatter all the way out. The up close shots are going to be low either way, but 3" seems like a lot compared to 2-2.5". I am going to likely get the 104 and try them side by side. This 30mm optic is a bit larger all the way around it seems. Edited July 13, 2009 by fomeister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grywlfbg Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 I can mount either pretty well after about 3 presentations, it doesn't seem to matter, but when I mount it fast, I am pushing it up and can see inside the top of the scope. I did the ballistics calc using a 50 or 200 yard zero and it was way low at 300. I used a 100 yard zero and it was flatter all the way out. The up close shots are going to be low either way, but 3" seems like a lot compared to 2-2.5". I am going to likely get the 104 and try them side by side. This 30mm optic is a bit larger all the way around it seems. The 104 is .43" lower than the 135 so there really isn't that much of a difference. I just ran the math w/ the JBM calculator and w/ 69gr SMK's and a 200yd zero and there was a .2" difference in drop between the two sights at 300 (with the 135 dropping less) and the 135 is actually closer at 50 and 100 (by .2" and .1" respectively). So making this decision based on which will shoot "flatter" is silly (and should cause you to choose the 135 anyway). As 00 said, figure out which one fits your body and shooting style and use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFoley Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 I use 55 and 62 grain, and put in all the variables for this part of the country, and the 300 yard drop was like 8 inches. I tried 50, 75, 100, and 200 yard zeros, and none of them were as flat from muzzle to 300 with the higher scope. I talked to Brian at LaRue this morning, and he said the 104 works for 99% of all people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now