Scope Mounts


PDA






bmars
November 27, 2008, 08:34 AM
Do you prefer 1 or 2 piece mounts for all-purpose shooting (i.e. a rifle that is used for both deer hunting and range). I've had people tell me the one piece mounts will increase accuracy/consistency, but no one can seem to give me any real reason why.

If you enjoyed reading about "Scope Mounts" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dakotasin
November 27, 2008, 08:43 AM
i prefer 2-piece, preferably talley lightweights.

the myth is 1-piece makes for better accuracy consistency because it makes the receiver stronger. i think this is a myth because the base screws are not strong enough or bonded well enough to bridge the cut-out in the receiver to increase the strength of a receiver.

if the 1-piece were to be tried to use to increase accuracy, i think the minimum amount of work that needs to be done is to re-drill the receiver and base to accept 8-40 screws and the base should be bedded to the receiver...

R.W.Dale
November 27, 2008, 08:45 AM
I'm not gonna comment on the accuracy angle other than I believe it would take a super accurate bench rifle to tell any difference.

But from a practical standpoint, ease of use, durability and to some extent style.
NOTHING and I mean NOTHING comes close to the new Deadnutz ring mount mount. There are literally the best damn scope mount mankind has yet devised.

http://www.dednutz.com/

CH47gunner
November 27, 2008, 01:51 PM
Unless you intend to lap your scope rings, the one piece mounts are a lot easier on scope stress.
On a Tactical/Target set-up, I will use one-piece mounts. On a hunting rig, I typically would use a two piece.

Bruce

Savage 10FP .308 w/ Ken Farrell one piece mount & Warne Maxima QD Rings.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f232/ch47gunner/P8290011.jpg
Sako Finnbear AIII 30-06 w/ Burris two piece mount & rings.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f232/ch47gunner/P8290004-1.jpg

moosehunt
November 27, 2008, 02:03 PM
I seriously question the accuracy claim for 1 piece mounts. It is pretty much a matter of personal preferance, BUT, there is logic behind the claim that a 1 piece is a bit stronger with regard to holding the scope to the gun. Upon firing, the 1 piece distributes the recoil to all screws more evenly than a 2 piece, and potentially removes a bit of stress on the scope, because in a 2 piece, the scope serves to connect the two (but obviously, the rifle reciever does most of the connecting). All in, all done, I figure it's pretty much what blinks your eye. I prefer 1 piece, but can't sell the idea it is better--I just like the looks better.

dmazur
November 27, 2008, 02:13 PM
I understand that, provided the rings are made correctly, a 1-piece can reduce the problem of stressing the scope.

I had a problem with sufficient clearance for loading & ejecting, so I used a 2-piece mount and lapped the rings.

As already noted by another, I'm not sure there is much of a difference unless you're into benchrest competition.

Everything has to be mounted correctly, of course. You can have a rig with a poorly-installed 2-piece mount and another with a 1-piece and think the difference is due to the mount style...

lefteyedom
November 27, 2008, 03:33 PM
I prefer a one piece mount because it allows greater flexibility for positioning the scope rings on the barrel of the scope. This of course is if the one piece has multi-able ring mounting positions.
Many of my scopes just don't fit the action length for a two piece base relief ect..

I agree that one piece base is NOT going to Make the action any "stiffer" in away that would effect accuracy.

M'bogo
November 27, 2008, 08:56 PM
I'm not gonna comment on the accuracy angle other than I believe it would take a super accurate bench rifle to tell any difference.

But from a practical standpoint, ease of use, durability and to some extent style.
NOTHING and I mean NOTHING comes close to the new Deadnutz ring mount mount. There are literally the best damn scope mount mankind has yet devised.

http://www.dednutz.com/

A BIG x2 on the above statement.

I had an older model left hand Savage that I was not sure about which Game Reaper mount I needed. I called the company to ask about which mount would work or if they made one that fit my rifle. As it turned out they did have a mount in house that would fit my rifle. They were more than helpful and told me I could come to the factory to make sure the mount would work with my rifle and scope combo. I live an hour away from the factory in Sanford, NC so I took the short ride there. Tim Coggins mounted the mount on my rifle and made sure the scope cleared the mount and barrel. You can not beat customer service like that and the products they make are top notch. I don't know if they offer service like that to everyone but they gained a customer for life in me.

I have their mounts on three other rifles and have mounted four more on friends rifles. I highly recomend them.

M'bogo

jhansman
November 28, 2008, 02:21 AM
Until recently, I had a Dednutz one-piece mount on my Savage bolt rifle (sold it, kept the mount) and it was easily one of the best pieces of shooting gear I've ever bought. I tried to talk the guy who bought the gun to take the mount at nominal cost, but he said no, so I still have it, now to sell. Outstanding quality and workmanship.

MountainWalk
November 28, 2008, 03:34 AM
I myself prefer a one piece bar mount, windage adjustable rear, dovetail front on most of my rifles. Maybe not as accurate as the claims say, but I can vouch for the strength of the system. Two pieces are a little easier to load. On rings, I prefer four screws per ring. I love the Ruger mounts. Never on any of my rifles will there ever be a weaver base.

USSR
November 28, 2008, 07:40 AM
IMHO, a picatinny rail is the only way to go. With numerous scope mounting positions and the ability to quickly remove one scope and immediately mount another scope with rings on it, it allows for interchangability between scopes with all of your rifles.

Don

Geno
November 28, 2008, 07:56 AM
I prefer a picatinny system. I have a certain degree of hesitation of late Re: Leupold's quick-release rings. That could have to do with me snapping one of them when tightening (by hand) the bases screw.

Re: accuracy, the Farrell picatinny rail mounting instructions explicitly stated that the base should be mounted to the receiver with expoxy. The instructions stated that this mounting process is used in order to eliminate voids between the two surfaces that can occur due to consistencies in receiver and rail manufacturing.

Doc2005

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6991/markvht4.jpg
By doc2005 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/doc2005), shot with hp photosmart 733 (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=hp+photosmart+733&make=Hewlett-Packard) at 2008-11-24

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2348/hpim4781kh0.jpg
By doc2005 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/doc2005), shot with hp photosmart 733 (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=hp+photosmart+733&make=Hewlett-Packard) at 2008-11-17

moosehunt
November 28, 2008, 12:58 PM
A Picatinny may be sound and stout, but they sure are ugly in my opinion! Each to his own!

MountainWalk
November 28, 2008, 06:13 PM
Picitinny rails. Every one goes on and on about how you can swap scopes and swap this and that. Who cares? When I mount an optic, it lives there untill it breaks or finds a better replacement. I dont care for a crossbolt holding my rings on. Eye relief is a simple enough thing to find without making a rifle ugly with ugly mounts. But I guess one piece or two piece mounts arent tactical enough for the normal lazy, ride my four wheeler to the deer stand hunter.

If you enjoyed reading about "Scope Mounts" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!