Times they are a changing.

[Dave Hoback]

As I’m sure many others here, I have invested a great deal of time in researching scope mounting. We have come quite a ways...but some things aren’t as old as we might think.

To the point, I’m sure 90% of us here are using Picatinny mounts & rings over the older Weaver & much older Leupold “Standard” styles. (Heaven knows why the last 10% have not stepped into THIS century!) But I’ll give a little lapse of them. The Leupold Standard, are actually attributed to John Redfield, who designed what he called the Jr. & Sr. Rotary Dovetail mounts during WW1. These were the mounts used on 1903 Springfield sniper rifle through WW2, the Korean War & even used in Vietnam. And the mounts themselves became super popular in the 50’s. Of course they continue being sold today under Redfeild, Leupold(now called Standard bases & rings), as well as some other companies. The Weaver rail was designed in 70’s as a Two-Piece base/ring kit and gained some following throughout the following decades. But what we know today as the vastly superior design and used by 100% of professional rifle marksmen, is the Picatinny or Mil-Std-1913 Rail. It came into being in 1995 after Picatinny Arsenal was given the task of standardizing in 1992. And in fact, the rail has ties to work done by the A.R.M.S. Company in the early 1980’s, most notably Otto Repa who standardized the Weaver design.

Now here we are in 2020, and we are used to paying $150...$200...even $300 or more for scope mounting. Even a good set of rings are over $100. Of course China has been flooding our markets with cast, low metal(pot metal or soda can Aluminum) mounts & rings for at least 20 years. But in recent years I’ve noticed something. I’ve been seeing some good mounting products for under $100. Of course we aren’t used to this. We see a mount for $80 and instantly think(well, it’s ok...but cheap! I wouldn’t risk my life!” Good words to live by, no doubt. Although I think much of what we are starting to see is the result of normal human fair pricing standards. In the beginning of a product’s life, we pay a high price for top machining & the R&D that went into it. But over time, we shouldn’t be paying for R&D anymore. And developments in CNC machining have drastically improved. So, a company that is selling a mount today for $180, the same they did when first released, is ripping off the consumer. Yet it goes unnoticed. We don’t even think about it, because we have come to think of high dollar mounting as being able to “Stake our lives on”! We are Conditioned to this. (The same way we wear our masks & are still staying inside like good boys & girls). Conditioning! Hmm...well, it’s something I’ve been researching for several years. Besides my knowledge of mounting, I’ve also studied Metallurgy for about 8 years. I know a great deal of steels & Aluminum used in the firearms industry. To mounting systems for this conversation, I am referring to Aluminum Billet 6061 & 7075...both in the T6 heat treat. I can generally tell the difference between the two on feel. As I am building a new AR15 from one of the 80% lowers I’ve machined, I have decided to go with a 1-4x scope. Naturally I needed a forward or Cantilever scope mount. I have been a big fan of 1-piece scope mounts for many years. I use an American Defense Recon-S mount on my Savage bench gun. I’ve used various mounts on ARs through the years. All but one being expensive. However I wanted to try something different. I’m trying an inexpensive mount this time. But not CHEAP. I set out doing what I do best....finding the BEST for the LEAST. And I came across this mount below. From research, I’ve found this used by dozens & dozens of people and not having a single bad review. There are videos on YouTube of it mounted on an AR10 with many hundreds & even over 1000 308 rounds. It’s surviving all tests so far with flying colors. No movement, return to zero, etc. Just as well as much more expensive & even top shelf mounts! I’ve found three companies selling it, ADE, SonicKing which are the ones used in the videos & the one I found made by Fidragon. This mount was released in 2019 and was initially sold for $89 I believe. But it quickly came down to $59, and has been sold at various prices. The Fidragon unit I purchased was the least expensive, at $37 from Amazon. What I can tell you is that regardless of the name on it, these are all the same mount from one source. It is CNC machined very well, and regardless of what you may believe, it is indeed made of 7075-T6 Aluminum. I know the difference. And I can’t believe it myself. But then I realize it’s simply what I have been taught my whole life! What I have been Conditioned to! “Oh, it can’t be any good!” And yet, it is! “It must be made of POT metal or CAST!” But it’s not. This is not only a properly machined 1-piece mount using 7075-T6 Aluminum, but it uses something not seen in many much more $$ mounts... Recoil Lugs. Machined in the bottom and fitting perfectly in the Picatinny rails. Even how it was packaged was impressive.

Ill leave you with this. If you think something like a scope mount must cost $150 or more to be high quality remember this: We as consumers should NOT be paying for R&D from 20 years ago. Also, go look at the price of new 6061-T6 & 7075-T6 Billet. Even the small quantities that someone like me buys, as a machinist, are quite affordable. But when purchased as large quantities by huge companies machining & selling virtually millions of rails, mounts & rings every year...the prices are very close to each other and cheap!

https://i.ibb.co/YPWnPnM/EB1-BDA2-B-28-FE-434-A-8-BEC-99915-EAE958-E.jpg (https://ibb.co/tQhjQjt)
https://i.ibb.co/yRHKqNK/91-C7-EEE1-CA3-E-48-AF-990-B-5076-F898-FB75.jpg (https://ibb.co/sP8cqgc)
https://i.ibb.co/FVV2bbK/FBBC29-A9-5-AC2-43-C0-9799-9653-A208-BC5-D.jpg (https://ibb.co/L55mzz8)
https://i.ibb.co/wW9Rd0Z/DAD617-CD-4-D82-425-B-BC1-A-AAB0-E50-A331-F.jpg (https://ibb.co/sw02gmp)

[Fuj']

I personally gravitated away from anything pic rail for bolt guns
preferring solid one piece mounts direct to the action. I look at
pic rails as a go between and not needed. As for my AR's !! Yeah,
not much to do there since they are part of the upper, and needed
to add stiffness. Slamming scopes down low on AR's can be trouble-
some. I had this particular 56mm that even with low mounts, would
not clear. Fired the mill up and cut away a section of the hand guard
rail to nestle the scope in.

[Dave Hoback]

Yeah I saw you’ve been using the DNZ. I’m not a huge fan. The rings seem awfully thin. And not big on only two attachment screw points per ring. Rather have four. But again, I’m sure this is just more of the same conditioning we are all taught. You would know better than I, having used them yourself.

You did make mention of possibly trying the Wheeler though? It looks promising. As I commented on it, if that Wheeler were made of 7075-T6, it would be a top piece. But even in 6061, it looks very stout. The Spuhr-ISH angled cap configuration is nice. Albeit a copy, LOL! But hey, this is normal anymore and I’m ok with it. You can’t patent a SHAPE for goodness sake! And there are only so many to use. Goes along with the lower prices though. Been there done that, and didn’t have to pay to invent it! Shoot...look at the mount I first talked about. It takes some design cues from Geissele, Aero, etc. They saved money making it, and passed it on.

[Fuj']

Yeah I saw you’ve been using the DNZ. I’m not a huge fan. The rings seem awfully thin. And not big on only two attachment screw points per ring. Rather have four. But again, I’m sure this is just more of the same conditioning we are all taught. You would know better than I, having used them yourself.

Actually the DNZ model I'm using is stouter then most. The tactical
version of the Game Reaper are all 4 screw caps and choice of MOA
tilt machined in. I use the 20 MOA. The SA284 build is getting (today)
SKU-36234T2 34mm/20MOA/High. Had to get the high mounts. The
scope with mediums would not clear the much thicker M-24 profile
barrel. As it is, with the high's, the 50mm on the Burris F-class just
clears the barrel, and will have to lightly notch the bottom of the flip
up cap.

[yobuck]

Well hard as it might be to realize, the dark ages didnt recently end as far as the shooting world goes.
The modern day scopes and mounts really havent moved the ball very far in the accuracy world.
One thing we do have today is more options, and options are always a good thing.

[Txhillbilly]

I'll stick with using a quality 1 pc rail and ARC M10 rings. If you ever use these rings,you'll never use anything else. They hold a scope rock solid.

[Dave Hoback]

That is a point of differing opinions. I’m quite familiar with the ARC rings, and do not like the design. I’d also point out if what you say is true.....why aren't the countries multitude of professional shooters switching over to them? There are a handful of Pros using them, sure. But the total is fraction of the numbers using either the Spuhr or MPA mount. My point is, it’s quite easy to find those using Spuhr or MPA. Saying that either one is the “Top” mount, has both merit & evidence. Where as your statement is baseless. It simply doesn’t pass muster. I don’t mean this negatively, or as rebuke. Please don’t think of it in those terms. If you are quite happy with the ARC products, I think that is wonderful. I haven’t used rings period, for many years. And I will not use any mount with single screw point caps, or that use hinged joints. From a geometrical and designing stand point, this creates a point of pivot, possible loss of rigidity and movement. In the world of scope mounting, we are continually looking for ultimate holding. With what we know, that means the most surface contact, maximum clamping short of deforming the scope tube & highest rigidity possible. I find the ARC products are flawed in these aspects.

Again, this is simply my personal choice. Great thing we have so many mounting possibilities offered to us. Each can make their own decision based on their own research, preference... or even the one with the shiniest parts & most “bells & whistles”, LOL! That’s the great thing about all of this.

The point of my thread here was to show things I’ve found through research. Just some observations I’ve made based on the evidence I know I’m not trying to convince anybody that X brand is better than Y brand. I’m also not able to instantly teach others what I know as far as metals & composites. I’ve spent the last 8 years researching & learning Metallurgy. And I’m certainly not trying to have others “believe me”. Just outlining my observations & some things I’m trying. (And have been pleasantly surprised, based on my knowledge.)

[yobuck]

Im of the opinion that the criteria for a (Professional), is one who earns his lively hood as in getting paid, to do whatever it is that he does.
Im not of the opinion however that many shooters meet that criteria.
Certainly the many competition shooters wouldnt with very few exceptions.
No doubt most of those who do are obligated to use the products their sponcers require them to use.
As for the very basic type mounts like the early Weaver style, i was here and saw first hand scopes on hunting rifles being used for the first time by hunters. Fact is the mounts themselves worked very well, most of the early problems were within the scopes themselves and not the mounts.
Gadually those issues were resolved also, but the original mounts remained on many of those guns, and continue to work well to this very day.
Which is why companies like Savage continue to use them. Same goes for some of the other old mounts like the Redfield, they worked well for a specific purpose, like hunting, and they still do, which again is why they can still be bought today.
Fact is that even long range hunting/shooting dosent always require anything special by way of a scope and mount setup.
We need whatever we need, anything more is unnecessary, other than in the minds of those involved.

[Dave Hoback]

Absolutely. I agree. And anyone who wishes to can certainly use standard mounts on their rigs. Although I can’t imagine them on anything other than a classic style hunting rifle with sporter barrel. Certainly not on any Chassis rifle for benchrest shooting. (Weird) But hey, different strokes for different people.

[wbm]

We need whatever we need, anything more is unnecessary, other than in the minds of those involved.

Yep.

[yobuck]

Absolutely. I agree. And anyone who wishes to can certainly use standard mounts on their rigs. Although I can’t imagine them on anything other than a classic style hunting rifle with sporter barrel. Certainly not on any Chassis rifle for benchrest shooting. (Weird) But hey, different strokes for different people.
Well again i would urge you to research even recent history with regard to those type rifles.
Fact is that only a few short years back the term chassis would have drawn blank looks from even the most (up to speed on all this).
Same goes for other much needed things we have today, like say (kestrals).
If your lucky enough to live long enough, you will probably find someone accusing you of being a fudd for not recognising the virtues of the then modern day thing known as wood stocks.

[wbm]

If your lucky enough to live long enough, you will probably find someone accusing you of being a fudd for not recognizing the virtues of the then modern day thing known as wood stocks.

Several decades ago Precision Shooting Magazine did research on a variety of rifle scope rings. They tested all kinds. Aluminum, steel, expensive, not so expensive etc. etc. Remember the two screw steel rings that weaver made...the ones where both screws were on the same side? Well properly installed. they apparently performed as well as any other. Say what?!



"There are some things a person can learn only by having lived long enough." Andy Rooney

[yobuck]

Several decades ago Precision Shooting Magazine did research on a variety of rifle scope rings. They tested all kinds. Aluminum, steel, expensive, not so expensive etc. etc. Remember the two screw steel rings that weaver made...the ones where both screws were on the same side? Well properly installed. they apparently performed as well as any other. Say what?!



"There are some things a person can learn only by having lived long enough." Andy Rooney
I can only imagine the fun old Andy would be having today with the internet. lol
Hopefully we can survive the insanity attempting to take over our country and continue to have these type of conversations.

[Fuj']

"Andy Rooney" !!.....I miss that guy.

We have several guy's at the range that like to play "Beat the Jones's" Always
chasing the latest in "Shiney". I like my DNZ's. They have not been around as
long as most, but their very close to the working old school, and the less pieces
the better.....One

[yobuck]

"Andy Rooney" !!.....I miss that guy.

We have several guy's at the range that like to play "Beat the Jones's" Always
chasing the latest in "Shiney". I like my DNZ's. They have not been around as
long as most, but their very close to the working old school, and the less pieces
the better.....One
I put one of those on my grandsons Savage FCP in 308 a few years back with a Nikon Buckmaster 4x16 power scope for rock shooting from the yard at our camp. Works great, no problem getting out past 900 yards with it, whats not to like about that. larger screws holding the rings together as i recall.

[Fuj']

Thought I'd take a pic during the break in scrubbing. That Burris is
no small scope !!

[Dave Hoback]

Well again i would urge you to research even recent history with regard to those type rifles.
Fact is that only a few short years back the term chassis would have drawn blank looks from even the most (up to speed on all this).
Same goes for other much needed things we have today, like say (kestrals).
If your lucky enough to live long enough, you will probably find someone accusing you of being a fudd for not recognising the virtues of the then modern day thing known as wood stocks.

Yes, thank you Yobuck. I’ve actually been researching for many years. I’m certainly not one of our “young-ons” here who bought his first gun or maybe put together his first AR, all of “LAST year” ago. I do understand what you are saying. My adult firearms career started in the later 90’s. You are correct. Besides the discovery of the self contained cartridge, smokeless powder & repeating firing mechanisms, much of the technology has come over the last 40 years. But none of this really had anything to do with my original thought points in making this thread. We've really steered this off on a tangent, LOL.(my fault)

My point was simply showing a product I took a chance on, and ended up with much higher build quality & materials than its price point would suggest. Then giving my best educated guess as to why, based on some economic trends I’ve seen over the last several years. And of course throwing in a tad of the “grooming”...the training we’ve all been force fed through our shooting careers. We all know the old saying.... “You get what you pay for!”. But what if that’s not always true in the world of firearms components? Well, I’ve had wine from a $1000 bottle that tasted like RAT PISS! And I’ve had a glass from a $15 bottle that was absolutely delicious! So....why not other things?

[Dave Hoback]

Thought I'd take a pic during the break in scrubbing. That Burris is
no small scope !!

Lookin’ good FUJ. I thought you were gonna give that Wheeler mount a try?

[J.Baker]

Anymore which mount style I use really depends on the rifle and how it'll be used. For Savage rifles I stick to two styles: picatinney rail with either Burris Sig. Zee or Warne Steel rings, or DNZ Hunt Master 2-pc base/ring combos.

If it's a repeater with a DBM or a Target style single-shot I'll use the picatinney rail setup. If it's a repeater action with blind mag or single-shot adapter I use the DNZ's. My reasoning is a picatinney rail can make it hard to load a blind mag whereas the DNZ setup without the full rail bridging the loading/ejection port offers a little more room. The DNZ Game Reaper and Hunt Master mounts are also extremely light making them a great option if you're trying to keep things as light as possible, and they typically keep the scope a little lower to the action than a rail/rings combo for better eye alignment.

For my AR's I like the American Defense Manuf. (ADM) Recon mounts. They're a bit pricey, but not as bad as LaRue's. The ability to mount/remove an optic without the need of any tools is a must have for me on AR's, both for storage/transport reasons and because it lets me switch between a red-dot and variable power scope quickly and easily. I will admit though, the initial install of the scope into the ADM mounts can try one's patience with the vertically separated rings having the bottom screws also passing through the base of the mount.

[Fuj']

Lookin’ good FUJ. I thought you were gonna give that Wheeler mount a try?

Maybe on something else down the road. This build and wild cat is too important
to me to move away from something I know works extremely well for me. Also,
I don't think Wheeler has much in the way of a 34mm mount. For AR's, I have
several sets of Burris Extremes in most flavors. I'm covered there, until Kingdom come .
And don't need rings for my EO-Techs.