View Full Version : nightforce unimount ?
How precise are these? Is lapping needed even though the instructions say not to? Are they made from a single billed and are the ring caps mated to their ring lowers and numbered or some such? Just how precise is the mount? Also for an m4...1.5" height?
elephantrider
10-10-15, 04:33
How precise are these? Is lapping needed even though the instructions say not to? Are they made from a single billed and are the ring caps mated to their ring lowers and numbered or some such? Just how precise is the mount? Also for an m4...1.5" height?
Precise enough that I would NOT lap one. Lapping one of these is likely more harm than good. The lower half is definitely machined from a single billet. The ring caps aren't numbered or serialized. They are a VERY well made mount IMO, and I would not worry about ring misalignment, a need to lap, or any lack of precision.
Height? If you're doing more precision type shooting, I'd go for 1.375" height, it will let you get a better cheek weld. If you're doing a lower power optic (1-4, 1-6, etc.) consider a 1.5" if you want a little more of a heads-up shooting position for close range. 1.375" is the height of standard AR iron sights for reference.
Precise enough that I would NOT lap one. Lapping one of these is likely more harm than good. The lower half is definitely machined from a single billet. The ring caps aren't numbered or serialized. They are a VERY well made mount IMO, and I would not worry about ring misalignment, a need to lap, or any lack of precision.
Height? If you're doing more precision type shooting, I'd go for 1.375" height, it will let you get a better cheek weld. If you're doing a lower power optic (1-4, 1-6, etc.) consider a 1.5" if you want a little more of a heads-up shooting position for close range. 1.375" is the height of standard AR iron sights for reference.
I want this for a 1-4 nxs. Run N gun.
elephantrider
10-10-15, 21:21
I want this for a 1-4 nxs. Run N gun.
I think height wise, either one should work fine. Not a huge difference between the two. I think the 1.50" model exists for a little more clearance for larger objective bells. They also make a 1.375" height "extended" version which will give a little more flexibility in the eye relief and mounting position. I'm not sure how the eye relief is on the NXS 1-4, but I usually see folks with them mounted all the way forward (erector housing against back of front ring) with the mount on the farthest receiver slot. This may be enough for you depending on your LOP, etc.
Coal Dragger
10-10-15, 23:45
I own one that I have a 3.5-15X50 NXS mounted in. Very solid mount, no complaints other than it isn't a QD. Then again it is probably more solid than a QD. No lapping needed, it's GTG out of the box.
I used to have the 1.375 version with my NF 2.5-10x32 in it. I found it just a little too low, especially in prone. Great mount, but I prefer my optics up around 1.5". Personal preference, for certain.
Definitely do not lap it. :)
Coal Dragger
10-11-15, 02:59
Mine is a 1.5", and it is just about perfect on an AR. I was surprised to find that I can mount it up on an M4A1 with a fixed front sight post and not really have any interference or major ghosting in the glass even at low power.
Not sure if it will be as forgiving with a low powered variable in the 1-4 or 1-6 range though. Should be high enough to have the FSP at least in the bottom of the field of view at lower magnification. I'm reluctant to take off the FSP and put on a low profile block since a pinned FSP is about as durable and reliable as you can get for iron sights up front.
I've used my NXS 1-4 in a 1.5" mount with a FSP and it's fine, even at 1X. A few guys in the military use a 4X with a FSP....
If you're using a fixed stock or can shoot prone with your cheek on the stock of an adjustable, definitely a 1.5. If you like to scrunch up a lot I guess the 1.375 would work, but it's actually a tad lower than stock iron sights.
Either height will most likely work on most setups. I have 2 of the 1.375" models and I love them. I think it's the best mount of its type available. While not QD its repeatability is perfect in my experience. I moved one around to do load development on a couple of rifles and when I put it back on the original rifle and returned the scope to zero, it was perfect.
Coal Dragger
10-11-15, 14:07
I've used my NXS 1-4 in a 1.5" mount with a FSP and it's fine, even at 1X. A few guys in the military use a 4X with a FSP....
If you're using a fixed stock or can shoot prone with your cheek on the stock of an adjustable, definitely a 1.5. If you like to scrunch up a lot I guess the 1.375 would work, but it's actually a tad lower than stock iron sights.
Yeah I'm aware of the many 4×32's used by the military with a fixed front sight post. I've used them before, and carried one around in a horrible sandbox full of stinky Arabs for awhile.
I'd just never gone to any lower magnification at that mounting height, other than an Aimpoint which you can definitely see the front sight in. Of course a magnified optic using curved lenses is a very different animal even at lower power. One would think that as much observing as I have done with telescopes using a mirror in the center of the tube that I wouldn't be surprised at not having visual interference from small objects close to the optical system.
Well it seems like my decision to go 1.5" isn't a bad one. I personally like my 1/3 mounted M4s far more than my Absolute mounted. I just felt that I could keep my head more vertical and the world looks better like that to me.
1.5" height is OK for run and gun but I like it lower for prone shooting. I have the Unimount A191 1.375" height and it's still a tad high for me.
FWIW, the Noveske Shooting Team requested a 1.25" height for their Spuhr mounts. I would personally get this height if Nightforce made one.
It depends on your bone structure.
1.5" height is OK for run and gun but I like it lower for prone shooting. I have the Unimount A191 1.375" height and it's still a tad high for me.
FWIW, the Noveske Shooting Team requested a 1.25" height for their Spuhr mounts. I would personally get this height if Nightforce made one.
It depends on your bone structure.
I want it for use around barricades, etc. where a good cheekweld is impossible at times. Think VTAC Streetfighter courses.
elephantrider
10-12-15, 01:46
Well it seems like my decision to go 1.5" isn't a bad one. I personally like my 1/3 mounted M4s far more than my Absolute mounted. I just felt that I could keep my head more vertical and the world looks better like that to me.
Of course the world looks better that way, it's the same way you hold your head normally :) Our head and eyes are designed to work that way. I find a bit of an advantage in being able to keep my eye closer to the center of my eye socket, not obscuring it with eyebrow, glasses etc. Better overall and peripheral vision. One can accomplish the same thing with lower mounted optics/sights, but you have to slide the toe of the stock higher up on your shoulder pocket. It's a trade off bettween those two. In the prone it's a trade off between a solid cheek weld and better eye/head position relative to the optic centerline.
A little surprising that Noveske Shooting Team went with a lowish mount. You will see the other extreme as well. Daniel Horner (top 3 gunner) uses a really high 1.90" mount for a VERY heads-up shooting style, and does very well at the run-n-gun with it. Boils down to a little trade-off and some personal preference.
So...do you oil the crossbolts and then torque to 68 inch-pounds, or are those supposed to remain bone dry?
I did use Blue Loctite when I torqued the ring caps to 25 inch-pounds, per Nightforce Customer Service's recommendation (They said I could use it, or not, but they personally did).
Failure2Stop
12-23-15, 07:40
So...do you oil the crossbolts and then torque to 68 inch-pounds, or are those supposed to remain bone dry?
I did use Blue Loctite when I torqued the ring caps to 25 inch-pounds, per Nightforce Customer Service's recommendation (They said I could use it, or not, but they personally did).
Lubricated threads will give a more true torque indication than you will get when rubbing two "new" surfaces together without the aid of lubrication.
Lubricated threads will give a more true torque indication than you will get when rubbing two "new" surfaces together without the aid of lubrication.
It seems everyone goes 'round and 'round on this. Sadly, Nightforce does not publish whether their 25 inch-pounds or torque for ring caps is "wet", or "dry". Is using loctite on the ring cap screws going to over-torque the scope, if tightened to the specified 25 inch-pounds?
Failure2Stop
12-23-15, 11:40
It seems everyone goes 'round and 'round on this. Sadly, Nightforce does not publish whether their 25 inch-pounds or torque for ring caps is "wet", or "dry". Is using loctite on the ring cap screws going to over-torque the scope, if tightened to the specified 25 inch-pounds?
I have not seen an issue with adding loctite causing applied torque to result in clamping force being increased enough to be a factor provided that there is not a surface anomaly.
I have not seen an issue with adding loctite causing applied torque to result in clamping force being increased enough to be a factor provided that there is not a surface anomaly.
Solid. I spoke with NF, and was told that their employees all use Blue Loctite, and all torque to 25 inch pounds. Really, I think it would be a very fragile and cheap scope that would buckle at 30 inch pounds if 25 inch pounds is recommended (the largest corrective factor I could find for Loctite was 20% increase. The least...supplied by IWT as well as Henkle was 0% increase).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.