meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
you know what I mean. I said a few ounces, not pounds. I feel people are too picky when you start loading the other chit then weight gets seroius not compromising based on 5 petty oz on a scope or quality mount.
Ounces=pounds=pain. If you don't scrutinize every ounce that goes on your gun you can end up with a 15lb bench behemoth pretty easily.
Last edited:
Eddie Gunks
.338 Win Mag
I have run an aero mount for 4 years or so. I am notbice to my equipment. They have held up well, no issues.
One thing that sucks, is the that mount to the scope body screw go from the sides, not from the top, yhis makes leveling the reticle very challenging as it pulls it towards the screws as it tightens.
One thing that sucks, is the that mount to the scope body screw go from the sides, not from the top, yhis makes leveling the reticle very challenging as it pulls it towards the screws as it tightens.
Yeah, I've heard that install is a PITA. But thats not something that will be done regularly.
What offset would you recommend?
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Overlapping is a big no no.
However the very long cantilevers are not needed. 90% of the times a small cantilever is all is needed.
That is why you get the scope first and then measure and decide.
Here why even something in the same price range can be a screw up.
We actually measured forces in some mounts by putting them in a bench and applying torque and then watching them move using a micrometer.
Some of you guys know I have done this just to prove the stupidity of such designs.
I have even machined mine out of bar stock just to true them including some OEM ones.
BAD IDEA!
AMerican Defense
A) Cantilever too long. It is like having only a scope with one ring. Didn't we learn anything in physics class?
B) Only one screw and possibly aluminum lever or cast steel.
C) The lateral screws are cool but not much section left as support should the gun take a hit.
BETTER IDEA
Badger Ordinance (Service grade)
A) Just enough Cantilever and wide sturdy base w/o compromising the rigidity when applying torque forces.
B) Two screws with hardened steel threads, clamps and locking nuts. (Same as used in service Rings used by ARMY, Marines, etc...)
C) Vertical 1/2 rings machined in the base like they do with the actual service grade rings. A lot more meat on the bone.
Attachments
Last edited:
K, I dig it. Whats the weight? (lol)
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Don't know, dont' remember. It feels a bit heavier and beefier but it is a lot stronger than it feels heavier.
get the scope and then we can measure them. There are others. Midwest made also a bad ass one for $120.
Seekings also use to cut a nice beefed up ring.
There even a couple of budget ones OEM one can get in ebay that I trued with the lathe and they are sturdier
than $400 ones but costing $60.
the OEM moutns are used by serveral brands. Same mill different logos.
Get the scope first. Also think about a small shallow base to bind the upper and the rail but w/o touching
the scope mount. This adds to the rigidity of the whole setup specially when shooting prone or from a barricade
and makes a 2 piece upper and rail feel like a monolitic system.
There is also some movement there. Not critical but why not right?
Lets look at the aero mount then shall we?
Its got the side screws on the rings that you don't like but there is a ton of clamping area on the base, seems incredibly secure to me, has three cross bolts too.
Its got the side screws on the rings that you don't like but there is a ton of clamping area on the base, seems incredibly secure to me, has three cross bolts too.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Same problem with the stupid lateral screws. very fancy but bad idea.
Its slightly different, only one set of screws on the bottom, the top is hooked/clawed together. The ring split is also offset to one side. You conceed at least the base is solid though?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Ounces = pounds. One has to ask oneself if the added weight of a scope is worth the extra weight when normal combat engagements are less than 200 yards for a soldier most times and even less so for a civilian. A lighter red dot will serve the purpose and beats a true 1X every single time for CQB.
If it's going to be at an enemy 300 yards away the red dot still works perfectly. Hell. Irons do too. If the engagement is for more than 300 yards, you have the wrong caliber. Sure the .223 will hit up to 600 yards accurately but at that range over 300, the ballistics are crap. More than likely you'll be getting pinholes.
If it's going to be for punching paper at those distances to see them touch one another than the weight of a scope shouldn't be an issue.
A red dot or ACOG makes much more sense for actual combat ranges. Before the unsafe act, I had a 7x magnifier for my red dot and decided to take it off and sell it because the extra weight wasn't worth it if carrying it in a combat situation. You also lose the ability to co witness irons. Just my 2 cents. Not knocking anything just adding a perspective. 6 pounds is better than 8 if the rifle isn't for paper.
If it's going to be at an enemy 300 yards away the red dot still works perfectly. Hell. Irons do too. If the engagement is for more than 300 yards, you have the wrong caliber. Sure the .223 will hit up to 600 yards accurately but at that range over 300, the ballistics are crap. More than likely you'll be getting pinholes.
If it's going to be for punching paper at those distances to see them touch one another than the weight of a scope shouldn't be an issue.
A red dot or ACOG makes much more sense for actual combat ranges. Before the unsafe act, I had a 7x magnifier for my red dot and decided to take it off and sell it because the extra weight wasn't worth it if carrying it in a combat situation. You also lose the ability to co witness irons. Just my 2 cents. Not knocking anything just adding a perspective. 6 pounds is better than 8 if the rifle isn't for paper.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
The good thing about a good quality scope is that not only can do the fighting but it can cover any roles one might have for the carbine.
It can also be a substitue for 2nd glass for glassing through fields and surveillance reducing the need for a secondary glass.
It can also be a substitue for 2nd glass for glassing through fields and surveillance reducing the need for a secondary glass.
Is the M mount the same thing only without the built-in elevation? I don't think I'll be needing the elevation for this application.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Never buy mounts or rings with two screws per ring. Always 4 per ring of good quality alloy and threads.
...and don't forget to blue locktite them and torque to spec
with the torque wrench / screwdriver. That is really the last step.
...and don't forget to blue locktite them and torque to spec
with the torque wrench / screwdriver. That is really the last step.
It would seem that other than the side mounted screws the Aero mount meets, and even exceeds, your specs. It has 4 screws per ring and a nice long clamping surface with three crossbolts. Seems very secure indeed. The only drawback I see is its unconventional rings that make mounting the scope level in the rings a PITA. But such is only a one time deal and therfore tolerable.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Pod what's your thoughts on this. You may or may not recall I have a Leupold VX-2 1-4x20 on my 7600...74.7' FOV set @ 1x @ 100 yards. I was thinking to upgrade to Leupold VX-3I 2.5-8x36 which is half the FOV 37.5' @ 2.5x. It's only a couple ounces heavier, and I'd still be able to use low height rings. My concern is being able to hit a running deer in the chest with 1st or 2nd shot (I can do this consistently) out to 100 yards or so with this rifle and scope. The 1-4x20 is a nice scope, the 2.5-8x36 is nicer still and would let me squeeze all practical hunting accuracy out of this rifle. Think it's worth spending the $400? Just want your opinion.
Hoo boy, you are asking the wrong guy, I have next to nil expeirence with magnified optics, hence all the questions. Lotta hunter types on here that could help you though.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
I am pretty sure you would hit it with the other scope since you are probably a very good shot but in terms of moving targets specially at fast pace
I would stick to the 1-4 VX that is a classic in rapid targets and dangerous game take down.
If you could find a 1-6 or 1-8 or even 1.5 that suites your budget and style and doesn't sacrifice more on the low end then I would go for it.
I would never go above 2 for fast acquisition or shtf gun but as you know the specs on paper are relative.
the best thing is to go and test them for glass and features.
The VX are great value all the way.
Optics are really tricky and the bet is to find a dealer and go and check them. also ask around the local club/range.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Yeh, thus the 1-4x20 as my initial choice. Great moving target scope @ 1x, 4x will take me to at least 250 yards and stay in a 8" circle or less which more than meets my requirements. Sometimes wish I had more power on the high end for range work, and the 2.5-8×36 is a nice, quality, compact scope. Thanks for your input.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Ultimately, after some thought, I answered my own question. The smart play would be to install a weaver-style base (Warne), and purchase two sets of quick-detach low rings (also Warne), and set up both scopes on this rifle, quick and easy swap when necessary.
BDSKJCHRIS
.40 S&W
As far as MIL vs MOA is concerned, the choice is your's to make, both work, both can be very accurate. at 100 yards 1 mil = 3.6" and a moa=1" (a little over that but universally accepted as 1"). so 1/4 moa adjustments move .25" per click and .1 mil moves .36" at 100 yards. you need to decide which unit you would rather commit to. i choose mil because it is what i learned on, and it is easier for me to work with when switching from using yards or meters for my distance to the target. a mil is an angular measurement that works out to be 1/1000 of the distance between the firing position and the target. so at 100 meters 1 mil=.1 meters or 10 cm (about 4") and at 100 yards it is 3.6". minute of angle is easier if you are ranging in yards only (just my opinion, not factual by any means).
another bit of advice is to decide what you want the rifle to do. i shoot all different types of ammo through my rifles as well but i zero with, and set the rifle up to work best with 1 type (bullet/velocity).
I thonk that given the option I'd also prefer the Mil reticle. As a former Artilleryman I'm very familiar with mils, I'm justbnot very experienced with rifle optics.
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
I'd be interested on anyone's thoughts regarding the AD-Delta; no cantilever, but it looks solid as a rock. My purpose would be to be able to swap a really good optic onto different platforms.
American Defense MFG, LLC | AD Delta Scope Mount
American Defense MFG, LLC | AD Delta Scope Mount
For my purposes, given that the scopes I'm looking at will have a fairly long eye relief I will be wanting some level of cantilever.
Kent Goldings
.357 mag
The nice thing about a mil-dot is that radians is a natural angular measure, while minute-of-angle is not. Therefore, the calculations for reckoning distance are easier.
For example. For radian measure x, tan(x) is approximately x for small angles.
So, 1 mil is 1 yard at 1000 yards.
Therefore, the distance to a 1 yard target is 1000 divided by the number of milliradians from the top to the bottom of the target. It’s a quick and dirty calculation that works when you need a range in a hurry and you’re shooting at things of uniform size (people) and you don’t need pinpoint precision.
For example. For radian measure x, tan(x) is approximately x for small angles.
So, 1 mil is 1 yard at 1000 yards.
Therefore, the distance to a 1 yard target is 1000 divided by the number of milliradians from the top to the bottom of the target. It’s a quick and dirty calculation that works when you need a range in a hurry and you’re shooting at things of uniform size (people) and you don’t need pinpoint precision.
When you say 1 yard target do you mean 1 yard high? And wouldn't calculations using mils be in meters?
Kent Goldings
.357 mag
I guess if you had mil-dot graduations horizontally, you could use a 1 yard wide target.
Radians is a unitless measure of angle. Whatever unit your using to measure distance will work. The tangent of the angle is a ratio of distances. For small angles, the tangent is approximately the angle.... as long at we measure in radians. 1 mil =1/1000 radians.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 inch at 1000 inches.
1 mile at 1000 miles.
The angle is the same.
Radians is a unitless measure of angle. Whatever unit your using to measure distance will work. The tangent of the angle is a ratio of distances. For small angles, the tangent is approximately the angle.... as long at we measure in radians. 1 mil =1/1000 radians.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 inch at 1000 inches.
1 mile at 1000 miles.
The angle is the same.
Yeah, I don't quite get the math in all these calculations. I am dyslexic when it comes to maths. Literally, I have whats called a sequencing disorder, basically means simple math is very difficult for me. I can do algebra well, quadriatic equations, even a little trigonometry 'cause they replace most of the numbers with letters
Kent Goldings
.357 mag
That’s the beauty of a mil-dot reticule. The math is dirt simple. Count the mild subtending the 1 yard target and divide one thousand. That is your range.
I have a Ph.D. in mathematics. But, I don’t like to hit people over the head with it.
I have a Ph.D. in mathematics. But, I don’t like to hit people over the head with it.