Opinion on scope mount?

[JGifford]

Is it normal to have machine marks on the ID of rings (not the relief cuts, I mean the radial and longitudinal marks), or is this no bueno?

http://i67.tinypic.com/2a919g2.jpg
http://i64.tinypic.com/2ni1sll.jpg

[UWone77]

Out of curiosity, I checked a couple of Bobro's and a Geissele on my desk. None have the machining marks. What rings are you using?

[JGifford]

Out of curiosity, I checked a couple of Bobro's and a Geissele on my desk. None have the machining marks. What rings are you using?

I'll divulge that in a bit, I just want to know, with ZERO bias from this board, if I am being too picky, or nitpicking, or whatever, about those marks on the ID.

[UWone77]

I'll divulge that in a bit, I just want to know, with ZERO bias from this board, if I am being too picky, or nitpicking, or whatever, about those marks on the ID.

I'm not the precision shooter many are. Those machine marks wouldn't bother me personally.

[JGifford]

I'm not the precision shooter many are. Those machine marks wouldn't bother me personally.

Thanks.
In for more opinions on the matter.

[DeviantLogic]

Not going to take the rings off my scopes, but I think what you're seeing is normal. Really seems on par with my last couple NightForce rings if I recall correctly. Main thing is that you want is maximum surface area contact when tightening down. Most of the higher end mounts don't require lapping, and some manufacturers will void the warranty if you do.

[fledge]

Saw your post on this on another forum. Did the mfg admit it wasn't right when they offered a refund? Or did they say it was normal but willing to refund anyway?

[JGifford]

Saw your post on this on another forum. Did the mfg admit it wasn't right when they offered a refund? Or did they say it was normal but willing to refund anyway?

Good Morning Mr. Gifford,



Thank you for contacting us and thank you for sending us those pictures. I apologize for the issues with your optic mount and I am sorry that the mount did not meet your expectations. Please return the optic mount to the original place of purchase for a full refund. If you would like, please send me your address, I can drop a swag pack in the mail for the trouble. I hope this helps.



Thank You,

[Name Redacted]

[Stickman]

Because free swag makes it all better!

[Joelski]

If it's bothering you now, nothing will make it better. It could knock .5 MOA off your longest range and those marks would still taunt you.

[Slippers]

I see very minor marks on the surfaces that touch the scope. Hardly anything. The most visible marks are on the relief cuts where the top and bottom rings come together, which are basically irrelevant.

I personally wouldn't be bothered.

[alamo5000]

I am of the opinion that in general those don't (or shouldn't) matter and won't effect shooting if at all.

However after seeing some of the capabilities of some high end manufacturers and what they can produce when they really want to would influence my complaints. What else would influence my complaints is how much I paid for them.

So no it won't really have any kind of material effect on shooting, but if you paid a lot for a high dollar name brand I would take note of that.

Compare them with the competition and see what each offers in the same price range and report back.

[JGifford]

My issue is that this is the most expensive mount of a non-qd nature which is made in America, to my knowledge. I expected it to be the equal or better of my nightforce and bobro mounts. My geissele "super precision" mount did not live up to my expectations.

[Stickman]

My issue is that this is the most expensive mount of a non-qd nature which is made in America, to my knowledge. I expected it to be the equal or better of my nightforce and bobro mounts. My geissele "super precision" mount did not live up to my expectations.

Probably because you have issues. [:D]

[DeviantLogic]

My geissele "super precision" mount did not live up to my expectations.

Really? Do tell...

[fledge]

The mount in the pic as the Geissele mount.

[DeviantLogic]

The mount in the pic as the Geissele mount.

If that's the cat in the bag, it's not persuading me that much so far.

[JGifford]

Probably because you have issues. [:D]

I've just been spoiled by the cleaner workmanship of my NF Unimount and Bobro's. I'm sure the mount was fully functional, but so is a PEPPR.

[JGifford]

If that's the cat in the bag, it's not persuading me that much so far.

That's fine. It's not your money, or your mount. I just found chipped anodizing, and very evident milling marks inside the rings and elsewhere, to be a turn-off on a $350 mount when $250 mounts have none of those issues. YMMV, and everyone has their own expectations. My expectations were that for $350, I would get a mount that didn't have MIM clamps, chipped ano, rough machining, etc. When you charge $350 for a mount, and $250 mounts exist that are also functional, where does the extra money go? What is it spent for? In my case, I spent the extra money hoping for a superior product, that was made better. I do not feel that I got that. So I've returned it, un-used, and am buying something else, saving money, and getting better gear. Win/Win, and I learned something.

[Joelski]

That's unfortunate. My Geissele mount has no such markings, nor does it have MIM caps. Bill was very upfront about using investment casting for some parts, but not MIM. Also, the mount is align bored, so I wouldn't think it would show mill marks in the scope bore. Nonetheless, it seems his customer service is one of no questions asked, so find one that suits you and enjoy.

[JGifford]

That's unfortunate. My Geissele mount has no such markings, nor does it have MIM caps. Bill was very upfront about using investment casting for some parts, but not MIM. Also, the mount is align bored, so I wouldn't think it would show mill marks in the scope bore. Nonetheless, it seems his customer service is one of no questions asked, so find one that suits you and enjoy.

Might well be investment cast clamps. The caps are not MIM, of course.

Geissele passed CS on to their dealer.

I do not know the particular name of the machine that made the marks in the ring ID's.

This was a 2099 AlLi mount. Maybe it's harder to machine than 7075, as the 7075 G mount that I had, had none of these marks, and looked very nice. I may well purchase another G mount, but it won't be 2099.

[JGifford]

I ordered another Geissele mount, this time 7075. I will see if it's the same as this one. If it is, I will presume that "This is typical Geissele quality", and sell it on the EE as NIB, and replace it with a Nightforce mount. If it is not rough like this last one, then I will happily keep it, and simply make a mental note that Geissele QA/QC is variable, and they prefer to let their dealers resolve issues instead of resolving them as a company. Neither of which is here nor there, as they were 100% polite and even cordial with me, but it is a datapoint I'll remember. Anyway, waiting on my 05-404 to show up.

[Slippers]

It only makes sense that they told you to return it to the place of purchase. If Geissele refunds you and accepts the return then they have to go to WO to get the original payment you made. That's a pain in the butt and a waste of time.

If, on the other hand, you asked for a replacement, then I'd expect them to swap you out directly, which is exactly what they have done for me on several occasions with triggers and rails, unless they were out of stock.

I'd hate to see what you would find wrong with a gun from LMT or Colt, who have pretty mediocre fit and finish despite making gear that simply performs.

[JGifford]

It only makes sense that they told you to return it to the place of purchase. If Geissele refunds you and accepts the return then they have to go to WO to get the original payment you made. That's a pain in the butt and a waste of time.

If, on the other hand, you asked for a replacement, then I'd expect them to swap you out directly, which is exactly what they have done for me on several occasions with triggers and rails, unless they were out of stock.

I'd hate to see what you would find wrong with a gun from LMT or Colt, who have pretty mediocre fit and finish despite making gear that simply performs.

Got multiple Colt's that I've shot over the years. They work just fine. However, if I had bought a $2700 Noveske, and it had worse fit and finish than a Colt...that might be more applicable. We are not talking about the cheapest "quality" mount on the market. We are talking about a Super Precision mount. The most expensive non-QD mount made in America, of which I am aware. I didn't expect milling or CNC or whatever marks all over it, much less on the ID of the rings.

I believe Geissele was out of stock and didn't wish to deal with me. That's perfectly fine, they were perfectly polite. I am a bit surprised that they don't have an "extras" shelf like most manufacturers, though. However, it's a hot new product, and maybe they just don't.

Everyone makes mistakes, and a few slip out the door.

[alamo5000]

People make fun of me for being meticulous LOL (I know I know! HAAHAA) but this is why I generally stay away from some things high end. Don't get me wrong, I like nice stuff, but at some point the price goes from paying for function to paying for name brand. Finding that fine line is sometimes hard.

I will continue to scrutinize the stuff I buy for true value added to my shooting or enjoyment.

[Slippers]

From your pictures the only machine marks that are noticeable to me are on the relief cuts where the rings come together, and don't touch the scope. They are irrelevant. I'm sure if you look at the outside in all the various cuts and cavities you'll find machine marks as well. It's the nature of machining. Tools leave patterns in the aluminum, and blending all the passes together is almost impossible. Some of it disappears during bead blast and anodizing, but not all.

I find their rails to have tons of machining marks and variations, so you better avoid those at all costs. :)

[SINNER]

Wow. Nitpicking to the extreme. LOL

My money is that's not even a machine mark per say but a action of deburring the jewelry saw cut when they remove the caps. Likely a Abtex type deburring system or something similar.

Looks just the cut edges of high end engine components with tolerences far beyond a scope mount. Specifically connecting rods.

The anodizing flaws would be an issue for me unless they were in concealed locations.

[UWone77]

People make fun of me for being meticulous LOL (I know I know! HAAHAA) but this is why I generally stay away from some things high end. Don't get me wrong, I like nice stuff, but at some point the price goes from paying for function to paying for name brand. Finding that fine line is sometimes hard.

I will continue to scrutinize the stuff I buy for true value added to my shooting or enjoyment.

I don't expect much, so I'm rarely disappointed. [:D]

[Joelski]

Get a grip. You dealt with a reseller take your beef to them. That's standard business practice.
Geissele sells direct, btw.

[Joelski]

2090= near tool steel strength for Al weight. Tool steel shows marks. Why wouldn't this stuff?

If nothing else, it's extra clamping grip. Not being a Geissele apologist, but I've had nothing but great CS experiences with them.

[schambers]

FYIW, I've bought numerous Geissele and ALG products over the years and the triggers were the only things that had perfect fit and finish. Other products some times have a minor nick or ding. Those imperfections never effected anything and I'll put worse marks on the stuff anyways so I've never sent anything back

[alamo5000]

I don't expect much, so I'm rarely disappointed. [:D]

Depends on how much money it is and what it's supposed to do I guess :) That applies to more than one thing, and not just shooting.

For me when it comes down to it equipment or ammo or whatever wigit it is can have an effect on the outcome. If you have a crappy barrel, your ammo sucks, and your scope mount is loose you'll never know if the problem really is your abilities or not [:D]

That said I think there is such a thing as over doing it sometimes.

One fantastic component rarely will compensate for the other crappy ones. Crappy barrel + match ammo and $2000 dollar optic still won't produce results.

However if you take the 'decathalon method' it works out better. Do good enough in each event to win the whole thing. You don't have to jump the highest or be the fastest in order to win...

I like nice stuff just as much as the next guy (or even more) and when I get the 'package' together it forces me to focus on my skills rather than not knowing or bitching about gear.

[JGifford]

Wow. Nitpicking to the extreme. LOL

My money is that's not even a machine mark per say but a action of deburring the jewelry saw cut when they remove the caps. Likely a Abtex type deburring system or something similar.

Looks just the cut edges of high end engine components with tolerences far beyond a scope mount. Specifically connecting rods.

The anodizing flaws would be an issue for me unless they were in concealed locations.


The chipped anodizing is on the front of the rings facing the target, not concealed. It was a minor annoyance, but not a big deal.
The rings begged to be lapped smooth (I know, not something one should do, obviously so I did not). I say this, because they had a rougher ID finish than my Bobro and Nightforce.

Which raises the question...why pay $100 more, for a poorer finished product of equal or greater weight? I bought the Geissele mount because I expected that the parts of it which interfaced with the optic would be at least the equal of my NF Unimount. It isn't so.

So tell me, should I have kept it? Why? Why not replace it with one that isn't rough, or another product entirely? Should I just lump the $100 Geissele penalty because the rough finish and chipped anodizing "won't affect function"? I'm not that generous.

That really is the crux of the matter. This is the most expensive product that will meet my needs (attach scope to rifle reliably). It will not do so any better than a $225 product. So where is the difference? I expected it to be in the execution, and was dissapointed. I am getting my money back, and have nothing ill to say about the process. Sadly, the Geissele mount I found listed in stock---was not, so it may be a bit longer before I can compare the replacement to this one, as I feel that the one I had was indeed a fluke. It didn't look anything like my first Geissele mount, which was artwork.

The real litmus test here, is...would anyone have bought this from me for $350? because that's what you'll pay for it ANYWHERE ELSE without a insider discount. Or would you rather buy a different mount than this exact one? I am betting 99% of you would have wanted to buy a different one. Just a hunch.

[DeviantLogic]

I'm guessing the pictures posted aren't doing justice to the issues you're describing. You asked for our blind opinion on the inner surfaces of the rings...and got it. I agree that I would have high expectations from Geissele, without seeing the mount in person it's hard to say what I'd think. The chipped anodizing would probably bother me if it was visible. If you weren't satisfied with it...you did the right thing by returning it.

[UWone77]

I'm guessing the pictures posted aren't doing justice to the issues you're describing. You asked for our blind opinion on the inner surfaces of the rings...and got it. I agree that I would have high expectations from Geissele, without seeing the mount in person it's hard to say what I'd think. The chipped anodizing would probably bother me if it was visible. If you weren't satisfied with it...you did the right thing by returning it.

You nailed it. The pictures posted did not do what you are describing justice. Maybe we need to see some better ones to be on the same page?

[JGifford]

You nailed it. The pictures posted did not do what you are describing justice. Maybe we need to see some better ones to be on the same page?

I will take pictures of my new Geissele mount when it arrives, for comparison. I think then you will see what I was talking about. I would compare it to my NF Unimount, but I don't remove scopes once I mount them. They are as inseparable from their mounts as NFA items are from the owner, in my opinion. Yes it can be done, but NO.

I took pictures of the Geissele mount from multiple angles, and will gladly compare them when my replacement (found one in stock) arrives.

The texture inside the rings, at first I thought it was just dust or grit, so I cleaned the inside of the rings with acetone thoroughly. This is when I realized that there were "scratches" running left to right, and radially, all inside the rings. Would this harm function? Likely not. However, when coupled with the chipped anodizing, and the readily apparent machine marks on the rest of the mount, I asked myself...wtf did I buy this for instead of another Unimount, or a Badger?

They both hold a 30mm scope solidly to the upper, and the Geissele is the heaviest of the 3. So...why? Well, because I expected more exact machining, and I do not feel that was what I got. If there are machine marks on the ID of the rings, mill cuts on the bottom of the mount, CNC ridges on the rest of it (I dunno how to describe it, I'll post pictures with that of the new mount though), then what did I get? I got a 7.2oz 30mm mount with some sexy looking "pockets", is what I got. That is not what I paid $300+ for. I paid the extra $100 for PERFECTION. Because it's not more solid, it's not lighter, and it isn't doing anything differently (2 cross-bolts, with clamps, with 1/2" nuts) than the products I could have for less.

This is why I was dissatisfied. Not because "Oh, it won't work". However, I was a bit leery that it might mark up the scope tube, should I ever wish to remove it, although that's not likely. For reference, my NF Unimount, I removed it once to re-position the scope once I torqued it down to 25 inch-lb (per instructions), and there was NOTHING amiss on the scope. I could have put it in the box and sold it as "Never mounted", and noone could have proven me wrong likely without at least a jeweler's eyepiece.

Anyway, that was my contention. Once you break the $300 mark, you need more than "Well, it works, yeah?" to sell a 30mm non-QD mount. I don't feel like I got anything more than "Well, it works, yeah?", and so I sent it back to the dealer, who has been an absolute pleasure to deal with (Weapon Outfitters).

So, give me a few days, let me post comparison photos, and then you tell me if you would pay the same for each mount.

[Joelski]

Mine doesn't seem any different from the outer surface. Maybe it is a quirk of the 2099.

http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af93/Joelski144/ARs%20and%20Pistols/Optics%20and%20Sights/20160603_152904_edit_1469881831658.jpg (http://s997.photobucket.com/user/Joelski144/media/ARs%20and%20Pistols/Optics%20and%20Sights/20160603_152904_edit_1469881831658.jpg.html)

[JGifford]

Mine doesn't seem any different from the outer surface. Maybe it is a quirk of the 2099.

http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af93/Joelski144/ARs%20and%20Pistols/Optics%20and%20Sights/20160603_152904_edit_1469881831658.jpg (http://s997.photobucket.com/user/Joelski144/media/ARs%20and%20Pistols/Optics%20and%20Sights/20160603_152904_edit_1469881831658.jpg.html)
I believe so, as well.
Do you notice a lot of machining contours, etc. on yours, or is it smooth? Here, for example (now, I know this surface "doesn't matter", but it looks cheaply done. My Nightforce is absolutely smooth on this same radius. Much nicer machinework for $100 less. So where did my $$ go? Well, I think you're probably right, 2099 is a PITA):

http://i63.tinypic.com/2ih2yhg.jpg
http://i66.tinypic.com/2444n7p.jpg

Here is my Nightforce:
http://i67.tinypic.com/21jdovk.jpg
http://i64.tinypic.com/2s9dqow.jpg
*The NF is used, and the shiny areas you see on the underside are where it interfaces with the rail, not from machining/milling/etc.

And the whole mount continued in this trend, which left me rather ripped-off feeling about that extra $100 when the Unimount is obviously much more meticulously machined than the "Super Precision" Geissele I had.

That is what I'm hacked about. Where did that $100 go? Why can't it be as well made as far cheaper mounts? I can't wait for its replacement. I think it is the 2099 personally, or I would not have ordered another in 7075.

[Joelski]

My $99 Vortex mount was finished just as good as these mounts, yet it garnered more disdain for being a "cheap" mount than oohs and ahs. Just sayin'.

[JGifford]

My $99 Vortex mount was finished just as good as these mounts, yet it garnered more disdain for being a "cheap" mount than oohs and ahs. Just sayin'.

Both the Geissele and Nightforce are mil-spec items, and proven. I do not know about the Vortex mount. I do know that both the Geissele and NF are used in the real world, and I know that the NF is almost 2oz lighter, and has better machinework than the Geissele I got, by FAR. It also cost $100 less. These last 2 points, especially including the bearing surfaces of the rings (my main contention) are what led me to return the Geissele I had. I bought the Geissele because I thought it would be VERY precise, and I cannot get a mil-spec NF at the moment, so I took the 2oz hit, and ordered the Geissele. I am thinking this may well be a 2099 issue, and will report back when my 7075 comes in.

[Joelski]

Real world? For real? So you want BTDT and PRETTY. Here you go:

http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af93/Joelski144/ARs%20and%20Pistols/Optics%20and%20Sights/20160428_205637-1.jpg (http://s997.photobucket.com/user/Joelski144/media/ARs%20and%20Pistols/Optics%20and%20Sights/20160428_205637-1.jpg.html)

http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af93/Joelski144/ARs%20and%20Pistols/Optics%20and%20Sights/20160428_205527-1.jpg (http://s997.photobucket.com/user/Joelski144/media/ARs%20and%20Pistols/Optics%20and%20Sights/20160428_205527-1.jpg.html)

That's beauty right there.

[JGifford]

Real world? For real? So you want BTDT and PRETTY. Here you go:

http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af93/Joelski144/ARs%20and%20Pistols/Optics%20and%20Sights/20160428_205637-1.jpg (http://s997.photobucket.com/user/Joelski144/media/ARs%20and%20Pistols/Optics%20and%20Sights/20160428_205637-1.jpg.html)

http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af93/Joelski144/ARs%20and%20Pistols/Optics%20and%20Sights/20160428_205527-1.jpg (http://s997.photobucket.com/user/Joelski144/media/ARs%20and%20Pistols/Optics%20and%20Sights/20160428_205527-1.jpg.html)

That's beauty right there.

Agreed! And if a KAC mount had looked like my Geissele, their military sales director would have sent me an RMA immediately.

[UWone77]

Agreed! And if a KAC mount had looked like my Geissele, their military sales director would have sent me an RMA immediately.

LOL... well played Mr. Gifford.

[Joelski]

Any recommendations for keeping my oh-so-snobby, fru-fru dust free?

I suggest liberal tears and the blood of my enemies, but if you have a spare unicorn wipe, send it on uprange.

[JGifford]

Any recommendations for keeping my oh-so-snobby, fru-fru dust free?

I suggest liberal tears and the blood of my enemies, but if you have a spare unicorn wipe, send it on uprange.

No, but Geissele might be able to give you some whittling lessons to help pass the time until then. :P

[JGifford]

LOL... well played Mr. Gifford.

Seriously, I asked.

[SINNER]

Honestly that looks poorly finished. Not like it matters functionally but it certainly could have been a much cleaner surface before anodizing. Not happy should equal a return or replacement regardless at that cost.

[JGifford]

Well, Rogtac ships STOOPID FAST! God help 'em, but Geissele just seems to be lacking in the ability to create smooth, clean finishes. This mount looks very similar to the first, albeit I think it is a BIT CLEANER. Anyway, I'll keep it as they are all likely the same, I'm sick and tired of this mess, and I cannot get another mil-spec Nightforce at this time, but I do miss the clean machinework and the stainless steel ring-cap screws and titanium hardware on the Nightforce! The Geissele arrived rusted in the package to boot. Oil yo hardware, folks!

http://i65.tinypic.com/e3wgi.jpg
http://i66.tinypic.com/mbl894.jpg

[alamo5000]

I just going to say for the record that everybody just loves Geisele products and I am sure they have reason to.

My experience with them is that when I was building my AR I was going to use one of their rails. In fact I was hell bent on using one of them. BUT when the first one showed up it had a big gouge down the side of it and whatever anodizing or whatever was done right over the top of it as if they had no QC at all. After I sent it back the vendor (not the manufacturer) was questioning me like 'you must not be a shooter!' or 'you're building a safe queen' but regardless eventually I got my money back. If my whatever is going to have scratches and gouges in it fine, but it will be me that's putting them there.

I have sent a couple of things back from them and I haven't bothered with them since. Now in my mind, despite their popularity (and advertising budget) they aren't getting money from me. As you pointed out earlier they aren't worth the extra $50, $75, or $100 bucks just to wear their logo.

Given some people love them and good on em. But to me they are no where near the 'bang for the buck' category that I am looking for and they won't offer me any superior performance anyway.

[JGifford]

Well, the latest AR15 magazine at Barnes and Noble had an article on the G mounts, and you can clearly see identical striations on the ID's of the rings in the photographs in the magazine, as to what I posted here. Also it ironically states in the article that [any surface imperfections, will result in the scope being held less securely], or something to that effect. Anyway, apparently this is 100% normal for Geissele. I am not a fan, but then, I have also not read of it causing any issues, either. I'll motor on.

[Joelski]

http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af93/Joelski144/ARs%20and%20Pistols/Optics%20and%20Sights/20160813_113854-1.jpg (http://s997.photobucket.com/user/Joelski144/media/ARs%20and%20Pistols/Optics%20and%20Sights/20160813_113854-1.jpg.html)

[Jerry R]

You guys have convinced me ... I was waiting on the Geissele AR10/SR25 mount. Just ordered a BoBro dual-lever from Brownelle's instead. It's ring height is only forth thousandths shorter, will probably work okay with the US Optics and the SIG CQB rear sight.

[SINNER]

Someone better call Hakan Spuhr and tell him he does not know what he's doing. LMFAO

1569

[Slippers]

His are designed that way on purpose so you can put rosin on the scope.

[Joelski]

You guys have convinced me ... I was waiting on the Geissele AR10/SR25 mount. Just ordered a BoBro dual-lever from Brownelle's instead. It's ring height is only forth thousandths shorter, will probably work okay with the US Optics and the SIG CQB rear sight.

Jerry, did you miss the post above yours?

[alamo5000]

1569


His are designed that way on purpose so you can put rosin on the scope.

Kind of like glass bedding a scope! Holy crap that is brilliant. I have never heard of that brand but that looks very good to me.

[SINNER]

His are designed that way on purpose so you can put rosin on the scope.

Rosin should be used on every optic mount.

The claims that insignificant machining marks will damage a optic are bullshit. I have an older Spuhr mount that had a 1/8" wide area of grooves machined in it. The fact that newer models have almost the entire surface grooved tells me that more improve and not diminish the clamping force.

[alamo5000]

Rosin should be used on every optic mount.

The claims that insignificant machining marks will damage a optic are bullshit. I have an older Spuhr mount that had a 1/8" wide area of grooves machined in it. The fact that newer models have almost the entire surface grooved tells me that more improve and not diminish the clamping force.

I don't want to get in the way of a good argument but I wouldn't use the term 'clamping force' [BD]

To me the ideal way would be to have a substantial friction holding capability that isn't focused on a singular point. That obviously requires precise machine work and a design that is superior. That is assuming that the scope being used is also manufactured to the same tolerances.

All that said there is a LOT that goes into shooting super long distances or extreme precision but barring those two things being your main purpose some of that stuff is overkill.

[SINNER]

I don't want to get in the way of a good argument but I wouldn't use the term 'clamping force' [BD]


Barrett, AADMOUNT, and Spuhr describe it as clamping force so that means it's an accurate description of the interaction between the mount and the optic tube.

And for a FYI Spuhr does not require using rosin, in actuality they only recommend it for magnum calibers. They also state an adhesive can be used for extreme recoil forces.

[Joelski]

.338's and above that I've seen use rings.... Just sayin.

Well, there was the M82 with an Eotech.. LOL

[SINNER]

.338's and above that I've seen use rings.... Just sayin.

Well, there was the M82 with an Eotech.. LOL

Good rings properly installed are no problem on .338's. Honestly I think my .300 Winmags are worse than my .338 Lapua.

1570

[Jerry R]

Jerry, did you miss the post above yours?

Thanks, yes I did. Actually just got tired of waiting.

[gatordev]

Well, there was the M82 with an Eotech.. LOL

Yeah, it's a thing. I've worked with that configuration regularly.

[Joelski]

Yeah, it's a thing. I've worked with that configuration regularly.

Okay, I absolutely don't doubt you at all, but give me a scenario in which its a go-to? I thought it was a joke.

[alamo5000]

Okay, I absolutely don't doubt you at all, but give me a scenario in which its a go-to? I thought it was a joke.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/09/07/sniper-with-holographic-sight/

I've never been in the military but if you try looking through a scope while airborne and you will be hurling your guts up in no time. It's been known to make some people seasick.

Plus you might actually hit your target with a RDS or something of that sort. When you are bouncing around in the air and you need to get rounds on bigger targets at close range... why not?

[JGifford]

Rosin should be used on every optic mount.

The claims that insignificant machining marks will damage a optic are bullshit. I have an older Spuhr mount that had a 1/8" wide area of grooves machined in it. The fact that newer models have almost the entire surface grooved tells me that more improve and not diminish the clamping force.

People shooting scopes loose with .308s in spuhr mounts and Mr. Spuhr himself saying you need rosin for it to work is proof enough for me thay I'd rather not have grooved mounts as such.

[SINNER]

Seriously WTF are you talking about?

[JGifford]

Seriously WTF are you talking about?

http://forum.snipershide.info/showthread.php?t=191257&page=2
Post 99.
Also, read page 1.

[Joelski]

Just use J.B. Weld and be done with it.

[gatordev]

Okay, I absolutely don't doubt you at all, but give me a scenario in which its a go-to? I thought it was a joke.

Here you go (looks like he was running a 552 that day, but could be a 553):


https://youtu.be/Bov5M5RuYME

The point of that flight wasn't to hit anything, but to give exposure to the M107 for my co-pilot and one of the crewman. It's part of the syllabus because the thing is pretty annoying in the cockpit since you're in the gas flow of the brake.

alamo is on the right track. The M107 (and family) isn't a sniper rifle, it's an anti-material rifle, some sort of low/no-power optic helps with what you're aiming for. Years ago when I had some SEALs in the back, they still ran magnified optics on their SR-25s, but that was for a much different mission set and end-goal.

[Joelski]

No, I get that it's mission is primarily to neutralize hard targets, I just wasn't thinking in terms of near field vs. distance. I'm straight now, thanks.

[alamo5000]

I would even say that it's not always near vs far. If you're out taking out cars with a zero magnification optic you could reasonably do so 4 and 500 yards out. I guess the difference will be the ability to detect threats and react in a dynamic environment.

[alamo5000]

Personally I enjoy these kinds of discussions alot. How to outfit various equipment for different situations is pretty cool stuff.

[Joelski]

I can't see taking out an engine at 500 yards with any kind of red dot. Your dot will just about cover the target at that range. Granted, I prize guns like this for the "FUCKING KA-BLAM!!!" it makes than for precision. As clearly demonstrated by the iron sights. [:D] Might be a good use for a Big Bertha mount...

http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af93/Joelski144/ARs%20and%20Pistols/Friends%20guns/IMG_9681_1.jpg~original

[Joelski]

Here you go (looks like he was running a 552 that day, but could be a 553):


https://youtu.be/Bov5M5RuYME

The point of that flight wasn't to hit anything, but to give exposure to the M107 for my co-pilot and one of the crewman. It's part of the syllabus because the thing is pretty annoying in the cockpit since you're in the gas flow of the brake.

alamo is on the right track. The M107 (and family) isn't a sniper rifle, it's an anti-material rifle, some sort of low/no-power optic helps with what you're aiming for. Years ago when I had some SEALs in the back, they still ran magnified optics on their SR-25s, but that was for a much different mission set and end-goal.

Here's a question for ya; has anybody ever thought of developing a blast shield for the Barrett round brake, or an entirely new muzzle device for ops that involve nearby crew members? You'd have a whole lot of buddies cheering on it's procurement!

[gatordev]

Here's a question for ya; has anybody ever thought of developing a blast shield for the Barrett round brake, or an entirely new muzzle device for ops that involve nearby crew members? You'd have a whole lot of buddies cheering on it's procurement!

They came up with a much easier solution: everyone just uses M110s now. It solves a lot of the issues that the Barrett creates, although there are some times when having a strategically placed .50 cal round has slightly more impact than a .308. Sometimes NOT hitting the target can be effective.

[BoilerUp]

Here's a question for ya; has anybody ever thought of developing a blast shield for the Barrett round brake, or an entirely new muzzle device for ops that involve nearby crew members? You'd have a whole lot of buddies cheering on it's procurement!

The military solution is much cheaper:

1571

[JGifford]

The military solution is much cheaper:

1571

Does nothing for the main issue at hand. Concussion.

[Joelski]

And how many shit are given about that by the supplier of the hearing protection?

[Ordnance]

My issue is that this is the most expensive mount of a non-qd nature which is made in America, to my knowledge.

Your knowledge in this aspect is limited. There are several other high end manufacturers that are more expensive then Geissele and "made in America". Go look up "GDI P-ROM". Lapping was only intended to provide uniformity to rings that were often 1) not machined together, and 2) when installed on the more common 2-piece bases, they were often not aligned well enough to provide uniform surface contact between the ring and the tube when tightened down. Smoothness does not equate to grip, ergo why your hands have fingerprints and oils, which is something Håkan figured out early on.

[JGifford]

Your knowledge in this aspect is limited. There are several other high end manufacturers that are more expensive then Geissele and "made in America". Go look up "GDI P-ROM". Lapping was only intended to provide uniformity to rings that were often 1) not machined together, and 2) when installed on the more common 2-piece bases, they were often not aligned well enough to provide uniform surface contact between the ring and the tube when tightened down. Smoothness does not equate to grip, ergo why your hands have fingerprints and oils, which is something Håkan figured out early on.

My knowledge is not comprehensive, of course, but I do know that GDI's mounts do not fit the description I laid out, as you will note ""of a non-qd nature"...

[SINNER]

AADMOUNT makes some of the nicest non QD mounts I've used.

[JGifford]

AADMOUNT makes some of the nicest non QD mounts I've used.

I have heard very good things. I love John's scope caps. I also ordered a Bobro today. I'll see which one I prefer. I have had very good experiences with bobro thus far with rtz. My live fire test indicated less than 0.5moa rtz shift, and that's including all environmental factors as well.

[SINNER]

Bobro are one of my favorites. Mounted up the new AADMOUNT today. Even cleaner machining and finish than my other one. It's a damn nice mount.

1583

1584

1585

Trillium pill in the level is a nice touch.

1586