Geissele super precision....

[WS6]

Anyways, actually talking about this mount....

Do we have any engineers or metallurgy guys here who can give us a hint at how much this might weigh and how strong it might be?

Would you guys be more interested in a throw lever version or the version shown?

It will be significantly more rigid than 7075, and a few % lighter. However, mass will determine weight, not material, in this case/with this item. Engineering will determine rigidity, with the material enhancing the design. I am wondering what makes it better than a NF Unimount, in a technical sense, to be honest.

[SteveL]

Anyways, actually talking about this mount....

Do we have any engineers or metallurgy guys here who can give us a hint at how much this might weigh and how strong it might be?

Would you guys be more interested in a throw lever version or the version shown?

I would be more interested in a throw lever.

[samuse]

He is making a subjective post based on his opinion and you are telling him he is wrong and trying to look cool? Give it a rest, your opinion is yours, and his is his. This isn't the ARFCOM cheerleading section.

Right. Because I'm sure everyone saw it and though 'Wow, just like a LaRue but better!'...

Note the striking similarities:

[C4IGrant]

Right. Because I'm sure everyone saw it and though 'Wow, just like a LaRue but better!'...

Note the striking similarities:
http://i.imgur.com/ndX2n.jpg

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/w...01-660x393.jpg

There is only so many ways you can make a cantilever mount. The LT rings and the Bobro are totally different. So if anything, the mount looks more like a Bobro or KAC product than a LT mount.





What matters more than looks is how well it stays on the rail. I would be interested in seeing how it interfaces.


C4

[sevenhelmet]

For the record, I have an LT104 QD on one of my rifles, and it's a fantastically made mount. I'll sit back and keep my mouth shut from now on. Go LaRue! Go BoBro! Go Giessele! Go M4C!

[CFII]

The alloy is intriguing. The extra cuts just add cost and machine time. No QD? I don't quite understand the target market, other than people that run G everything. Which is fine. To each, his own.

[samuse]

I'm not turned off by the lack of QD capability. For a dedicated precision application, the nuts may be desirable because you can use a torque wrench to install and have everything just how you want it.

[samuse]

There is only so many ways you can make a cantilever mount. The LT rings and the Bobro are totally different. So if anything, the mount looks more like a Bobro or KAC product than a LT mount.





What matters more than looks is how well it stays on the rail. I would be interested in seeing how it interfaces.


C4

And that's not a bad thing at all, they're good mounts.

Lots of good options these days and I like that Geissele made this in DDC. Black is boring at times.

[C4IGrant]

The alloy is intriguing. The extra cuts just add cost and machine time. No QD? I don't quite understand the target market, other than people that run G everything. Which is fine. To each, his own.

Most people NEVER remove their mounts. I have QD everything and RARELY remove them. Also, if you use a witness mark or a calibrated torque wrench, you can return to zero any screwed on mount (done it many a time). QD's also drive cost. So hopefully this mount will be cheaper.


C4

[CFII]

Everything I have is QD, and yup, it's usually on there all the time. But a step backwards in capability? I've had optics fail. Magnified optics at that. QD is nice.

As for cost? I imagine these will rival Spuhr.