Are lightweight mounts strong enough to do the job?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giggles

So here another question. Is there anything or any brand I should absolutely avoid when it comes to choosing a non QD mount?

---

For non-QD mounts - no particular brands. I don't much like the Chinese-made scope mounts, but some of them are tolerable (Burris PEPR, SWFA SSALT (which is a PEPR rebadged). I don't recommend any though. The AeroPrecision lightweight mount is nice, and if you're giving up QD, why not try super light? I have a PRI non-QD mount that seems well made, but may have been discontinued now. I think Warne makes a decent non-QD mount also.

The Leupold Mark 2 IMS mount is OK, but is neither particularly light nor cheap, and it has lots of sharp edges, so I wouldn't recommend it. On the plus side it appears to be US-made as I haven't found any "made in _" badging on it.

Similarly, GG&G (Arizona) makes scope mounts in both QD and non-QD flavors, but I can't find much to like on the non-QD model when considering its price. No real problems, just not any reason to pick one.

You specifically asked about non-QD. On the QD side there are several I would avoid, including anything Chinese (INCLUDING the QD version of the Burris PEPR), and ARMS. Probably others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SomeOtherGuy

You specifically asked about non-QD. On the QD side there are several I would avoid, including anything Chinese (INCLUDING the QD version of the Burris PEPR), and ARMS. Probably others.

---

As someone that has recently found themselves the owner of a Burris QD PEPR mount thanks to 'Santa', I have to agree with SomeOtherGuy. The main problem it faces is the metal prongs that the QD adjustment screws use as stops as well as the QD adjustment screws themselves seem very chintzy. And it's heavy.
On the plus side the rest of the mount is pretty damn overbuilt, there are two picatinny rail gap filler recoil lugs (the screws) and the clasping bar is one solid continuious piece. Oh and TWELVE ring screws along with both smooth and picatinny rail top ring options.
But those QD screw stops and the QD screws themselves ruin it. So close, yet so far.

I honestly think it would work for my purposes (primary optic on a single rifle with no real intention of removal with no intentions of dynamic/tactical/combat/entry work), but the nagging feeling of the aforemention problems would eat me alive, which is why I ordered the AeroPrecision Ultralight 30mm SPR mount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr blasty

So because you did some testing, the real world can't possibly contradict it. Uh huh. I've made a lot of money repairing things people thought where beyond strong enough to stand up to something and backed by engineering. Sorry but the kitty litter box has produced a plethora of soldiers coming back with stories about how there mounts broke but the optics were fine. Acogs, aimpoints, nightforce, us optics, etc all have a reputation for building a brick shit house of an optic. Many of these lightweight mounts cut much of the weight from the mass between the clamping area and the interface with the optic itself. I'm not referring to any one particular mount, but it's become a bit of a trend to make mounts lightweight by basically mounting the optic on stilts. And 600 series, 7000 series, and any of these other exotic alloys of aluminum being used are still aluminum, ie. they yield and deform quite readily as soon as they hit there working limits. Aluminum does a great job for lightweight weapon components but it has its limits.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

---

This is the type of stuff I was looking to hear. I honestly think lightweight options don't look as strong, or can really perform as well. I was just considering Aero because of the price and since there american made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr blasty

So because you did some testing, the real world can't possibly contradict it. Uh huh. I've made a lot of money repairing things people thought where beyond strong enough to stand up to something and backed by engineering. Sorry but the kitty litter box has produced a plethora of soldiers coming back with stories about how there mounts broke but the optics were fine. Acogs, aimpoints, nightforce, us optics, etc all have a reputation for building a brick shit house of an optic. Many of these lightweight mounts cut much of the weight from the mass between the clamping area and the interface with the optic itself. I'm not referring to any one particular mount, but it's become a bit of a trend to make mounts lightweight by basically mounting the optic on stilts. And 600 series, 7000 series, and any of these other exotic alloys of aluminum being used are still aluminum, ie. they yield and deform quite readily as soon as they hit there working limits. Aluminum does a great job for lightweight weapon components but it has its limits.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

---

To paraphrase Wes Grant from MSTN when he replied to my concern that a Spuhr mount was overkill for a low power variable optic on a gas gun, "Overkill is under rated".

I am open to QD mounts, doesnt have to be light weight. One thing that concerns me with QD is it not returning to zero. Plus Im still debating the merits of QD, and whether it is all that. In this great age of back up sights. And whatever I choose has to be American made. Im not trying to go over 150 in price.

Non-QD, I think the Badger and Nightforce and KAC Unimounts are the best. Nightforce is 5.4oz, Badger is 7.5, and I am not sure what KAC is. (30mm extended).

For QD, I prefer Bobro. Nothing else comes close regarding psi clamping force.They are 7.5oz for the 30mm extended single throw-lever (which Bobro recommends for optics up to about 30oz on a .308 gun)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giggles

I am open to QD mounts, doesnt have to be light weight. One thing that concerns me with QD is it not returning to zero. Plus Im still debating the merits of QD, and whether it is all that. In this great age of back up sights. And whatever I choose has to be American made. Im not trying to go over 150 in price.

---

Stretch the budget a bit. OR stick with non QD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshNC

To paraphrase Wes Grant from MSTN when he replied to my concern that a Spuhr mount was overkill for a low power variable optic on a gas gun, "Overkill is under rated".

---

I'm not a fan of SPUHR. The surface area that is clamping the scope is so large that they requir rosin/glue for .308 and up in lighter guns, or the scope will walk.

See, people think more surface area is mo-better! but it's not necessarily so. See, scope rings work by compressing the scope tube. The tube springs back against the ID of the rings, in response, as physics and the elastic nature of it dictate. Now, when you compress more surface area with the same amount of torque, you get less deformation. SPUHR recommends relatively low torque on their mounts, and the rings are relatively wide. This means less scope tube than is idea is getting displaced, regarding amount of displacement. In the end...you need rosin or glue for the SPUHR mounts to hold of to serious recoil, per Mr. Spuhr. This is why you see NF, badger, KAC, and virtually all others sticking with ring-widths of around <0.86 while the SPUHR is =1.26". It doesn't mean the SPUHR is gripping any better...it's just compressing more surface area with the same torque which equals less PSI on the optic tube. Scope tubes are generally not designed for that much surface area displacement, and thus the recommended torque is not appropriate.

Long story short, SPUHR, in my opinion, has fixed something until they broke it. That, and even the EraThr3 mount is still 7+oz, even though it's skeletonized and makes liberal use of Ti.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giggles

Are lightweight mounts strong enough to do the job? With light weight being the trend will something light a aero precision scope mount be able to take a serious bump. From the weight of a gun, during a fall. To me it seems the length of the scope between two point of contact would give strength to the mount. The reason I ask is because I like the looks of their stuff... But wonder.

---

If you can precisely define "the job", you'd probably get a better answer.
What is a "serious bump"?
How far of a fall, and onto what surface?

How you frame your question will determine the usefulness of the answer you receive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giggles

I am open to QD mounts, doesnt have to be light weight. One thing that concerns me with QD is it not returning to zero. Plus Im still debating the merits of QD, and whether it is all that. In this great age of back up sights. And whatever I choose has to be American made. Im not trying to go over 150 in price.

---

For QD I would increase this budget and get a Bobro. Otherwise I would forego QD altogether.