see-through mounts
- Thread starter hovercat
- Start date
- Status
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Do Not waste your money.
See-Through mounts always place a scope way too high to see though it with a normal stock comb.
So, you have to hold your heavy head up off the stock, on your rubber neck, to see though it quickly.
A proper cheek-weld on a normal iron sight stock comb will be impossible.
Not to mention the higher then normal scope will change the trajectory of the bullet.
Not to mention, the higher the scope is mounted, the easier it is to bump it and lose the zero.
Not to mention, there is no logical reason to ever use the iron sights again.
If you buy a reasonable quality scope that isn't too powerful for the caliber.
And don't run over it with your jeep.
rc
See-Through mounts always place a scope way too high to see though it with a normal stock comb.
So, you have to hold your heavy head up off the stock, on your rubber neck, to see though it quickly.
A proper cheek-weld on a normal iron sight stock comb will be impossible.
Not to mention the higher then normal scope will change the trajectory of the bullet.
Not to mention, the higher the scope is mounted, the easier it is to bump it and lose the zero.
Not to mention, there is no logical reason to ever use the iron sights again.
If you buy a reasonable quality scope that isn't too powerful for the caliber.
And don't run over it with your jeep.
rc
blarby
Member
I've used see through rings on a lever-action, and a .22.
They were both Marlins, and had nearly identical iron sights.
It was useful to be able to use the scope at distance, and still have the flexibility for ironsight short shots with the rifle.
They were also very useful in teaching my wife the differences in lining up shots using the irons, and the scopes, and back and forth. She got very good, very quickly. She appreciated them, but in the end chose a loopy 4x for her scout rifle.
What you are giving up is some cool points, and some clearance. It is a compromise, so realize that. Outside of the guidegun/brush shots/longshots, I see a lot of use for these where the desire to have a long range optic AND have the ability to do close fast work without it would be useful.
They were both Marlins, and had nearly identical iron sights.
It was useful to be able to use the scope at distance, and still have the flexibility for ironsight short shots with the rifle.
They were also very useful in teaching my wife the differences in lining up shots using the irons, and the scopes, and back and forth. She got very good, very quickly. She appreciated them, but in the end chose a loopy 4x for her scout rifle.
What you are giving up is some cool points, and some clearance. It is a compromise, so realize that. Outside of the guidegun/brush shots/longshots, I see a lot of use for these where the desire to have a long range optic AND have the ability to do close fast work without it would be useful.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
IMO: If you can't do fast, close-range work with a low-mounted scope??
Your scope has more power then is necessary, or desirable for an iron sighted rifle of any caliber.
Further, the #1 mistake I see a lot of people making anymore is buying a high power scope with a narrow field of view and slapping it on a deer rifle, or .22.
Then wondering why they can't find the target while quickly looking through it..
rc
Your scope has more power then is necessary, or desirable for an iron sighted rifle of any caliber.
Further, the #1 mistake I see a lot of people making anymore is buying a high power scope with a narrow field of view and slapping it on a deer rifle, or .22.
Then wondering why they can't find the target while quickly looking through it..
rc
Outlaw Man
Member
My dad was always a great shot and preferred iron sights. As his eyesight deteriorated to the point he felt like he needed a scope in a lot of scenarios, he thought the see thru months would be ideal. I'm not sure he ever killed a deer with them. He was always suffering from at least one of the issues rcmodel stated. He's since switched to standard mounts and is much happier.
There's a reason most rifle makers don't put both iron sights and scope mounting appendages on their rifles.
There's a reason most rifle makers don't put both iron sights and scope mounting appendages on their rifles.
See through mounts = the worst of both irons and optics. You can't use either very well.
As long as a decent, lower powered scope is purchased there is no need to waste time with iron sights. Optics do everything better and in 40+ years of shooting I've had far more issues with iron sights failing than scopes. So much for wanting back up iron sights.
As long as a decent, lower powered scope is purchased there is no need to waste time with iron sights. Optics do everything better and in 40+ years of shooting I've had far more issues with iron sights failing than scopes. So much for wanting back up iron sights.
LeonCarr
Member
It gripes the heck outta me to go to a gun shop, see a nice bolt action rifle with quality optics on the used rack, and it has see through mounts. As previously mentioned the worst of both worlds.
But I have used see through mounts as a bargaining chip haggling for a better price
.
Just my .02,
LeonCarr
But I have used see through mounts as a bargaining chip haggling for a better price
.Just my .02,
LeonCarr
USAF_Vet
Member
I've tried them, don't really like them. The scope sits too high for a good cheek weld, or if you have a high comb, you really can't get low enough to see through the mounts to use the irons. Decent idea, not the best execution of design.
Grumulkin
Member
I've used see through mounts on several rifles and didn't think they were that bad but have since gone to quick detachable scope mounts.
I didn't find the check weld thing or the high mounted scope to be much of issues though. Also there are times when you need to shoot something very close; even too close for a low power scope and they're handy then.
I didn't find the check weld thing or the high mounted scope to be much of issues though. Also there are times when you need to shoot something very close; even too close for a low power scope and they're handy then.
I also have a set on a 7400 30-06 for 18 yrs I like them for that, it has never loss zero in the blind or out has take many a deer and my cheekweld has not been a issue for me yes I also have long range custom rigs for and wouldn't put them on them.
Outlaw man, But if you Dad wants them put them on and let him enjoy them for the cost if you change them you are not out alot of money....
AF
AKElroy
Member
I agree with every post pointing out how see-through rings are a bad idea. I did not see the most superficial, but not insignificant reason one should never use these atrocities: they are ugly as a mud fence.
Outlaw Man
Member
I think you missed my last part. He now has standard rings and is happier.
Your point is well taken, though. Most rings and bases aren't so expensive that you can't afford to try a few.
Your point is well taken, though. Most rings and bases aren't so expensive that you can't afford to try a few.
OpticsPlanet
Member
I tried them a long time ago on a Marlin 336 in .30-30, ended up with a 2-7x scope, so i had low enough magnification to deal with closer shots. If i was doing it today, I might even go with a 1-4x. I don't have a long enough neck to do the see-through ring thing
Mark H.
Mark H.
matrem
Member
I did recently find a possible use for them.
Bought an HK 416 D from my BIL & rather than dealing with the proper riser and rings, he'd used a set of "ironsighters" to mount the scope.
I've shot a couple hundred .22 lrs through it, and so far it doesn't seem to "line up" too bad at all.
As for anyone buying them to actually use the irons?
Forgetaboutit!
Bought an HK 416 D from my BIL & rather than dealing with the proper riser and rings, he'd used a set of "ironsighters" to mount the scope.
I've shot a couple hundred .22 lrs through it, and so far it doesn't seem to "line up" too bad at all.
As for anyone buying them to actually use the irons?
Forgetaboutit!
- Status