Anyone tried the Aadland mount yet?

[Graystroke]

Before you chew my ass off, I did a search here and there was only 3 threads - one was an advertisement by SWFA. The 2nd one was a question from last year like mine with no responses. The 3rd link didn't work.

Soooooooo - has anyone tried an Aadland mount on their AR? I was trying to justify the LT104 at twice the price of the Burris PEPR and then I stumbled across the damn Aadland ad at $35 more than the LT. What got my attention was these are machine of harder 7075 aluminum versus 6061 (not sure what the others are made of actually - I'll research)! Thanks.

http://swfa.com/Aadland-Mounts-C3316.aspx

[Canonshooter]

No first-hand experience but it looks like a very solid mount (the rings look like Seekins, which I used on my Remington 700 SPS Tac). My only concern would be the lack of a quick-detach feature, which depending on how you're setting up the rifle, may or may not be an issue.

[tonyxcom]

Looks like a real neat mount. I like the built in anti cant bubble level.

Not sure why this rifle has BIUS with a permanently mounted scope though.

http://www.aadmount.com/30mm/PICT0191.JPG

A lot more photos on their website.

[Warg]

Saw one local fella using one at the range a few weeks ago. Apparently they are made in my neck of the woods. Looks like a well-made, stout piece of kit. The guy using it said it worked well, but didn't seem to think it was any better than the other mounts he has used such as LaRue, etc. His only gripe was the anti-cant level: he indicated it was difficult to see in low light and preferred rail or scope mounted levels.

As far as the material, i.e., 7075, I just don't see the need for harder aluminum on a scope mount given the fact that most scope tubes are 6061. I'm not aware of many quality scope mounts failing due to material choice either, though I have seen an aluminum ring or two fail due too much torque.


Before you chew my ass off, I did a search here and there was only 3 threads - one was an advertisement by SWFA. The 2nd one was a question from last year like mine with no responses. The 3rd link didn't work.

Soooooooo - has anyone tried an Aadland mount on their AR? I was trying to justify the LT104 at twice the price of the Burris PEPR and then I stumbled across the damn Aadland ad at $35 more than the LT. What got my attention was these are machine of harder 7075 aluminum versus 6061 (not sure what the others are made of actually - I'll research)! Thanks.

http://swfa.com/Aadland-Mounts-C3316.aspx

[Jon A]

Hi guys,

I don't come here too often but as the maker of these mounts I'd be happy to answer any questions anybody may have. Maybe it would help if I started by clarifying a couple things already mentioned:


Not sure why this rifle has BIUS with a permanently mounted scope though.

Heh, well the first thing is those irons I consider a permanent part of that rifle--they're all locktited on and never come off. The optics on the other hand, since I'm a "scope guy," I change more often than than my underwear. Lately it's been spending quite a bit of time like this:

http://www.jonaadland.com/Hunting/SuperSniper/1-6X24HD/PICT0459.JPG

Secondly, just because a mount isn't QD, doesn't mean it's permanent. It comes off in only a few seconds, using this little wrench:

http://www.aadmount.com/30mm/DSC00099.JPG

http://www.aadmount.com/30mm/DSC00101.JPG

Now if somebody is going to be shooting at you in those few seconds it takes to remove the broken scope so you can continue to fight with your irons...by all means, that's what a QD mount is for and that's what I'd recommend for that application.

But that just isn't a reality for the vast majority of my customers. Even many of the LE guys seem only concerned with easily being able to swap on the chosen optic before they go out on a call.

More and more, AR's are being used in roles that were traditionally filled by bolt rifles with larger scopes where precision is important, and historically they've never used QD mounts. That's more the type of rifle I had in mind when designing these. There are already a ton of QD mounts on the market for those who need or want them, but there wasn't a large selection of quality mounts like mine. If there had been I never would have felt the need to make them.


As far as the material, i.e., 7075, I just don't see the need for harder aluminum on a scope mount given the fact that most scope tubes are 6061. I'm not aware of many quality scope mounts failing due to material choice either, though I have seen an aluminum ring or two fail due too much torque.

The material choice isn't really about hardness, as surface hardness is largely determined by the anodizing type and thickness. It was more about strength. One of the most popular requests for this updated design was less weight, so I carved a lot of material out of them. Of course given my day job I can do this in a more informed manor than most and did run multiple FEA's throughout the process, but there's no denying the increased strength of 7075 (roughly twice as strong in most measures as 6061) makes lowering weight while maintaining high levels of strength much easier.

Mounts and rings, both aluminum and steel do fail due to both material choice and design on more than rare occasions--which is a good thing for me as that's how I get many of my customers. The level of strength I require from my products is many, many times higher than most on the market.

There are tons of light duty mounts as well as lower quality made in China examples on the market and I have no desire to enter that market. I want to offer mounts and rings to people who want levels of strength and durability so off the charts, it simply removes any possibility of mount failure from their life. This gives great peace of mind.

I have many customers using my mounts on DTA's, Barretts, AR50's, etc in 338 Lapua and 50 BMG who came to me after getting tired of their (often high quality big name brand) QD mounts rattling loose, losing zero, showing poor accuracy and letting the scope slide in the rings--all problems that magically go away when one of my mounts is used.

Does the average guy with an AR-15 need that much strength? No, but it doesn't hurt anything either. At only 8.7 oz (for the 30mm version) one gets a whole lot of peace of mind for very little weight penalty.

As for screws stripping aluminum mounts and rings, yes, this is a common problem with other brands due to their design and/or choice of materials. I paid particular attention to these loadcases when designing mine and can tell you it won't happen with my mounts. Never has, never will. It's virtually impossible.

Anyway, sorry for being so lengthy. People often sort of wonder why I designed these things the way I did so I thought it would be helpful to explain exactly why I did the things I did for those who are interested.

[ra2bach]

thanks for coming here and explaining things. and I agree - if I had a big heavy scope on a hard recoiling rifle, I would definitely consider your mounts.

good luck...

[lifebreath]

The guy who did this High End Tactical Scopes comparison (http://opticsthoughts.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81:high-end-tactical-scopes-part-ii&catid=4:rifle-scope-reviews&Itemid=4) had very good things to say about the Aadmount. He was looking at 3-12X, 3-15X type scopes.

For these type mounts, I'd be happy with either the Aadmount, Near Alphamount or Spuhr. I chose the Alphamount for my bolt gun:

http://www.lincolndiagnostics.com/public/doug/guns/FNSPR/spr2sm.jpg

[Warg]

For these type mounts, I'd be happy with either the Aadmount, Near Alphamount or Spuhr. I chose the Alphamount for my bolt gun:



Isn't the Spuhr ~$400?

[Warg]

Jon,

Welcome and thank you for your detailed reply.

I was impressed with the construction and the finish of your mount. I had no idea it was 8.7 oz as one cannot readily see the effort you've made to reduce weight when the mount is on the firearm. It looks like a 12 oz mount and that is a compliment.


Hi guys,

I don't come here too often but as the maker of these mounts I'd be happy to answer any questions anybody may have. Maybe it would help if I started by clarifying a couple things already mentioned:

Heh, well the first thing is those irons I consider a permanent part of that rifle--they're all locktited on and never come off. The optics on the other hand, since I'm a "scope guy," I change more often than than my underwear. Lately it's been spending quite a bit of time like this:

Secondly, just because a mount isn't QD, doesn't mean it's permanent. It comes off in only a few seconds, using this little wrench:

Now if somebody is going to be shooting at you in those few seconds it takes to remove the broken scope so you can continue to fight with your irons...by all means, that's what a QD mount is for and that's what I'd recommend for that application.

But that just isn't a reality for the vast majority of my customers. Even many of the LE guys seem only concerned with easily being able to swap on the chosen optic before they go out on a call.

More and more, AR's are being used in roles that were traditionally filled by bolt rifles with larger scopes where precision is important, and historically they've never used QD mounts. That's more the type of rifle I had in mind when designing these. There are already a ton of QD mounts on the market for those who need or want them, but there wasn't a large selection of quality mounts like mine. If there had been I never would have felt the need to make them.


With the exeption of your statement regarding being able to remove your mount in a "few seconds", I concur. Thirty seconds, perhaps, but not a few.

If one wants a QD optic mount there are several quality offerings available that aren't made in China.



The material choice isn't really about hardness, as surface hardness is largely determined by the anodizing type and thickness. It was more about strength. One of the most popular requests for this updated design was less weight, so I carved a lot of material out of them. Of course given my day job I can do this in a more informed manor than most and did run multiple FEA's throughout the process, but there's no denying the increased strength of 7075 (roughly twice as strong in most measures as 6061) makes lowering weight while maintaining high levels of strength much easier.

Mounts and rings, both aluminum and steel do fail due to both material choice and design on more than rare occasions--which is a good thing for me as that's how I get many of my customers. The level of strength I require from my products is many, many times higher than most on the market.

There are tons of light duty mounts as well as lower quality made in China examples on the market and I have no desire to enter that market. I want to offer mounts and rings to people who want levels of strength and durability so off the charts, it simply removes any possibility of mount failure from their life. This gives great peace of mind.

I have many customers using my mounts on DTA's, Barretts, AR50's, etc in 338 Lapua and 50 BMG who came to me after getting tired of their (often high quality big name brand) QD mounts rattling loose, losing zero, showing poor accuracy and letting the scope slide in the rings--all problems that magically go away when one of my mounts is used.


Indeed, I meant strength rather than hardness. However, among the quality mounts available, I personally cannot envision breaking one and, if I did, I'd be more concered about the optic that was mounted therein. I'm not saying 7075 is a bad material choice, rather the opposite, but if employing this material results in a substantial price increase that must be passed onto the consumer then I may likely choose a "reasonably robust" mount that is $50+ less expensive.



Does the average guy with an AR-15 need that much strength? No, but it doesn't hurt anything either. At only 8.7 oz (for the 30mm version) one gets a whole lot of peace of mind for very little weight penalty.


We're in agreement on what you're offering- a very strong mount that is relatively svelt. You've also distilled the issue above for me- do I need a "super optic mount" that is as strong as yours for my AR15s? Personally, I do not for the price you're asking. I'm not stating that it's too high, rather that it's too much for my application(s). For larger caliber rifles that might get banged around a lot this may likely be a different story.



Anyway, sorry for being so lengthy. People often sort of wonder why I designed these things the way I did so I thought it would be helpful to explain exactly why I did the things I did for those who are interested.

No not at all. Again thank you for taking time to reply. I wish you luck with this venture and am happy to see another manufactuer offering what appears to be a well designed product.

[Jon A]

I was impressed with the construction and the finish of your mount. I had no idea it was 8.7 oz as one cannot readily see the effort you've made to reduce weight when the mount is on the firearm. It looks like a 12 oz mount and that is a compliment.
Thanks!

However, among the quality mounts available, I personally cannot envision breaking one and, if I did, I'd be more concered about the optic that was mounted therein.
Certainly. It’s not common, but it does happen. While customers have sent me stuff I naturally can’t pass on, here’s one example that was posted right here:

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=80543

Severely bent mount, a “failure” by any definition, but the scope was just fine. That’s just an example not aimed at that specific brand as many other mounts would have bent under a similar blow (there are certainly much weaker mounts than that on the market) but as I said, just an example. Many cantilever mounts are quite vulnerable to that loadcase—especially the ones with extra extension as a vertical load puts a large moment on the mount where it has only a small cross sectional moment of inertia.

Something fun to do is to press down on the front ring of various mounts with a dial indicator showing how much each one moves. Or even more scary for a rifle with scope already mounted, is to look through a boresighter while having a buddy press on the front ring do give you some idea what the flexibility is doing to your POI at 100 yds. Under simple hand pressure, most mounts should return to the correct spot unless you push really hard, it simply gives you a visual of what’s going on—with the knowledge that it’s only going to flex so far before it does begin to take a permanent set. Even .001” of permanent deformation will cause a noticeable shift in POI.

I'm not saying 7075 is a bad material choice, rather the opposite, but if employing this material results in a substantial price increase that must be passed onto the consumer then I may likely choose a "reasonably robust" mount that is $50+ less expensive.
It does raise the price, but not by that much. More like ½ of that. But you’re right, it is a significant difference to some. I do realize many would happily buy it from 6061 at the lower price. However, there are also many customers who specifically look for 7075 when shopping for a “high end” mount, much less one they feel is “the best” for their application so it cuts both ways.

So it was a personal choice I made. The first generation mounts were 6061 and there’s nothing wrong with them strength-wise, but they had a lot more material and were much heavier. I wanted to keep as much of that strength as possible with the lighter design and 7075 helped a bunch with that goal.

No not at all. Again thank you for taking time to reply. I wish you luck with this venture and am happy to see another manufactuer offering what appears to be a well designed product.
Thanks again. I always enjoy good technical discussions about this sort of thing.

[skullworks]

A late addition to this thread. Yes, at $425 the Spuhr ISMS mount isn't cheap - but you get what you pay for. Compared to all the other mounts listed the Spuhr mount is lighter than most one-piece mounts (Jon_A wins by 0.4 oz compared to the ISMS cantilever version) and it is less obtrusive in size whilst offering multiple interfaces for accessories. Also, the Spuhr ISMS is currently being fielded with a number of SOF military units all over the world.

Here's a document explaining all the features of the ISMS: http://spuhr.com/scopemount%20features.pdf

And yeah, I have one on my AR (see attachment).