Results 46 to 60 of 84
Thread: Opinion on scope mount?
-
30 July 2016, 19:46 #46Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- Bentonville,AR
- Posts
- 783
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
-
31 July 2016, 10:15 #47
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.
-
1 August 2016, 08:36 #48Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- Bentonville,AR
- Posts
- 783
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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!
-
1 August 2016, 11:08 #49
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.
-
12 August 2016, 17:18 #50Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- Bentonville,AR
- Posts
- 783
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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.
-
13 August 2016, 08:51 #51
-
13 August 2016, 14:31 #52
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.
NRA Benefactor Member
NRA Certified Instructor
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on."
John Wayne - "The Shootist"
-
13 August 2016, 15:20 #53
Someone better call Hakan Spuhr and tell him he does not know what he's doing. LMFAO
-
13 August 2016, 15:23 #54
His are designed that way on purpose so you can put rosin on the scope.
Will - Owner of Arisaka LLC - http://www.arisakadefense.com
-
13 August 2016, 15:32 #55
-
13 August 2016, 15:32 #56
-
13 August 2016, 15:36 #57
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.
-
13 August 2016, 15:45 #58
I don't want to get in the way of a good argument but I wouldn't use the term 'clamping force'
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.
-
13 August 2016, 15:55 #59
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.
-
13 August 2016, 16:27 #60
.338's and above that I've seen use rings.... Just sayin.
Well, there was the M82 with an Eotech.. LOLThere's no "Team" in F**K YOU!