Re: Scope Mount
- From: "penultimate" <drwilly@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:49:53 +0000 (UTC)
You have been posting this same basic question everywhere and have
gotten a bunch of answers. But maybe some additional information will
help you.
1. You may have noticed that several people, including myself,
recommended Leupold mounts. This is for three reasons. (a) They are
well designed. (b) They are all made the same (high quality
manufacturing) in a shop where QC procedures very seldom let bad
product out the door. (c) As mounts go, they are among the better
looking. Other than the extra measure of confidence that always comes
with Leupold, I see no reason other than taste to choose them over
similar designs from others.
2. Much of the complexity in scope mounts lies in whether or not you
view the mounting of the scope as "permanent" or "changeable." The
latter means that you might want to remove the scope with regularity.
If the answer to this question is "no," (and in most cases if it isn't,
it should be) then pay no more attention at all to models that claim a
"quick disconnect" capability. And, since the second you try to
deliver "quick disconnect", you are also delivering lots of things that
can go wrong, reliability improves. So don't buy anything where "easy
removeability" is stressed as an attribute unless you really, really
want your scope to be routinely removeable from the rifle - at a
considerable price in reliability.
3. The reason for windage adjustable bases is a means of compensating
for a receiver that has been drilled and tapped for scope bases in
imperfect alignment with the bore, not compensating for wind when
shooting.
You can almost count on this problem in an older gun, including those
that were factory tapped in the days before receivers were built to CNC
tolerances. Without windage adjustable bases, you often ran out of
scope adjustment or ended up with the reticle out of the scope center
or both. A knowledgeable person installing a scope would center the
reticle at the mid point of its horizontal and vertical adjustment
range and achieve a bore-sight zero using shims under one of the bases
and the windage adjustment, as required. For whatever it is worth, an
aluminum beer can is a wonderful source of scope shim-stock. This
process meant that the reticle remained well centered when the rifle
was zeroed and most of the scope's adjustment range was available to
the shooter. Scopes of only a few years ago had a lot smaller windage
and elevation adjustment range. So this process was more often
necessary.
You may also note, however, that shimming a scope base and diddling
with a windage adjustable base, all to get the scope pointing in the
right direction relative to the barrel, most often because the holes
tapped for the bases themselves were imperfectly aligned, meant that
the rings were not exactly parallel and aligned with one another when
the process was done.
Hence, a lot of derivative foolishness like:
o Twist-in bases that allow you to allow you to achieve ring
parallelity in one axis at least.
o. Ring lapping rods and ring lapping rituals.
o Rings floating within rings
o More BS about "scope torque" and whose rings inflict it and whose
don't than you can image.
o Panic about "ring marks" that are hidden and you can't see and if
you did a good job on the mounting the scope in the first place, you
never will.
Notice that single and double dovetails and all this crap that seem to
be confusing you exist because so many guns are out there with
inconsistent receivers and imperfect drilled and tapped holes. But
this issue is mostly yesterday's problem. When the receiver presents
appropriately prepared perfection, most of the above is just ritual
from the past.
4. You may have noticed that some years ago Ruger said to themselves:
"Heah. You know, the way we make our receivers they come out all the
same. What if we milled the equivalent of scope bases into the
receiver and shipped rings with the rifle that fit these bases?"
When Ruger did this, they made 99% of the reason why an ordinary person
might be better off having a gunsmith mount his scope go away. And I
have never heard anyone complain about the reliability of the Ruger
scope mount. The lower "ring element" simply attaches to the receiver
like it was a scope base. And for those that rant about the extra
stiffness of a "one-piece [ugly] base", I point out that there is no
stiffer scope base than the receiver itself. Not counting screws, the
Ruger mount has 4 parts. A "one piece base" ends up with 5. A normal
"two-piece base" set-up has at least 6. A two-piece Weaver set-up has
10. When it comes to reliability, fewer parts is better.
But, when Ruger did this, other rifle makers did not immediately do the
same. Why? Because they were not built in a way that allowed
confidence that similar mounts would align a scope with the bore to an
adequate level of perfection.
5. In the not too distant past, all the major rifle builders had
migrated the precision of their machining technology and processes to
the point that you can pretty much count on receiver-to-receiver
consistency and that screw holes for scope bases are where they should
be. Thus, using a mount similar in simplicity to that of Ruger on a
new gun from Savage or Remington or (dare I say) Winchester is
feasible. Talley is making such a mount for selected rifle models
that is ultimately simple and reasonably priced. I pointed this out in
a post to one of your many versions of this same question. It is
probably impossible to design a scope mount that would keep a zero more
reliably than the Talley or that would install more easily on a rifle
suitable for mount use. A little Loctite on the screws is the only
"expert gunsmith" technique that would be required to insure good
performance.
The risk with the Talley is that I suspect you are out of luck if the
mounting holes on your rifle are not where they should be.
6. I don't like Weaver bases. They were designed for low cost
manufacture using the simplest of machines (a Bridgeport) and machining
operations (cuts at 90 degrees). Because anyone can make them, they
have. And a lot of Weaver style mounts out there are poorly made to
low and quite loose tolerances. Plus, they have too many parts for
reliability. And I think they are ugly too. Their chief advantage is
that they are cheap. But, unless they are really out of tolerance,
with extra attention to tightening down and Loctite, they will work.
Indeed, competent installation can make almost all the various mounts
out there (properly selected for the rifle) work and work reliably.
7. You seem to be very concerned with backwoods reliability and think
that the mount is essential in this area. And yet, you indicate target
knobs that are vulnerable to the elements and being knocked off on a
rock and have not made any indication of a secondary (iron) sighting
system. In this regard, I would note that I have NEVER had a backwoods
failure to maintain zero attributable to scope mount failure. But I
have crushed two scopes in falls, shattering optics. Fortunately, one
of them was a Leupold and the warrantee treated shattered glass and
bent tube as a manufacturing defect. And, in both instances I had a
back-up rifle available. I have also experienced a broken extractor
miles from no-where. Fortunately, one shot was enough. So, my point
is that if reliability is a serious concern, you should either plan on
access to a backup rifle or at least have iron sights, a couple of
critical spare parts (firing pin, extractor, maybe a spring or two and
possibly some replacement screws, and a small tool-kit. Be sure and
include an appropriate Torx or Allen head driver to remove your scope
so you can easily use your iron sights. And note that I did not
recommend one of those abominable "see through" scope mounts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Scope Mount
- From: canadian185
- Re: Scope Mount
- References:
- Scope Mount
- From: canadian185
- Scope Mount
- Prev by Date: Re: self defense ammo
- Next by Date: Re: Ammo Question
- Previous by thread: Re: Scope Mount
- Next by thread: Re: Scope Mount
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
