View Full Version : Any opinions on TAPCO's FAL STANAG mount?
April 11, 2006, 13:36
All opinions are welcome and will be read. I will not be using this in a professional role, no military or law enforcement utilization. I wonder if they are simply too high for a good cheekweld. Probably too far back for safe eye clearance. Since I do not have a Hensoldt scope, I probably will also get the Weaver/Picatinny rail mount adaptor. How are they working out for you?
April 11, 2006, 15:32
I was not impressed with the overall quality of the scope, image was clear and bright enough, but seems a bit cheap overall. The illuminator is loose on its dovetail mount, not to the point of falling off, but wobbles around a lot and there is noticeable light leak. The mount is quite solid, and seems well made. The only issue with the mount is it seems a bit too high, useable but could be better. Doesn’t look like it would tolerate much rough handling in that the supports are relatively thin aluminum, not that I would recommend slamming any scope around, but guns do get dropped and bumped on occasion. Mine was on the rifle for about a week total before being replaced by a somewhat more rugged and lower arrangement. It just got taken down off the book shelf over my desk and dusted off for the first time in months just now, probably not my wisest investment, but won’t be sending it back, it may yet have its uses.
April 13, 2006, 03:26
Originally posted by bill55
... The mount is quite solid, and seems well made. The only issue with the mount is it seems a bit too high, useable but could be better. Doesn’t look like it would tolerate much rough handling in that the supports are relatively thin aluminum, not that I would recommend slamming any scope around, but guns do get dropped and bumped on occasion. ...
Was there enough eye relief? Did the scope ever hit your eye, or cause you to hold your head far back on the buttstock?
April 14, 2006, 22:13
Adequate eye relief, but just barely, could have been a bit more for my liking. Definitely too high for me, not just inadequate cheek weld, virtually none at all. But it does afford an unobstructed view of the iron sights, and makes a nifty carry handle.
April 16, 2006, 14:49
Thanks for the reply. I keep looking at the pic of it to estimate the height. The upper supports are higher than the cover portion is. I think it would be hard on my neck to shoot this thing. :cool:
April 17, 2006, 16:21
Hello, this is my first posting. I just bought a STANAG mount and scope thru Sportsmans Guide. First of all, I like the mount, which replaces the hood over the bolt carrier. But I think the scope sounds like the one Bill just described. Kind of cheap. I'll try it out as soon as the weather improves, give my opinion.
April 18, 2006, 07:11
I have the Tapco Stanag mount and I like it. You do need a cheek pad on the butt to use it, unless you have a long-er face. The scope quality is good, but not excellent. The first one I got had a canted reticle and they swapped it. The new one is clear, I haven't had any complaints with it -- I know it's not a Leupold so I don't expect that kind of quality from it.
The illuminator on mine is tight. Some people's have been loose, but mine screws on tight.
no complaints for what I paid. I set it up at the range and in the half-dozen times i've taken it out, it's kept accurate.
i think the problem with these scopes is the quality control varies, but you can find good ones and Tapco will swap them if you have a reasonable complaint (i.e. like my canted reticle or its out of focus).
if you use it as a carry handle, it will definitely not last.
April 19, 2006, 18:36
My mount is different from the Tapco, it has a lot lower profile, but you can still use the sights. The scope appears to be the same, and the light attachment is loose.
April 21, 2006, 11:37
Since first posting here I have been playing around with the scope more and am beginning to form a more favorable second opinion. The Tapco SAW style buttstock certainly does not help with the cheek weld. I have been experimenting with shims to take up the looseness in the illuminator. A small piece of thin card stock is all it took, but I’m trying to find something more durable, and that won’t absorb water.
izaakb The “carry handle” comment was meant to be tongue in cheek obviously I wouldn’t use it for that, its too far back to balance properly!
April 23, 2006, 18:58
Compared to the original STANAG base/cover, the TAPCO version is placed further back. In other words, closer to the shooter's eye. Was the main reason for choosing the STANAG scope and mount to replicate the looks of that military combination? :)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.