Earlier this year I did a write up comparing the ADM and LaRue mounts. At the end of that comparison, I said that I'd happily use either mount, but would prefer the LaRue.

Well, I have something new to consider. This initial post is quite brief; I'll be updating it over the next week, and as necessary after that. I'm not the first to review this mount, as it has been out for over a year. However, message traffic on AR15.com regarding this mount has been notably brief.


(file photo)

I was provided a Bobro 180 mount by Primary Arms, a site sponsor, to evaluate. Immediately upon opening the box, I thought to myself that the designer, or designers, of this mount must be really smart engineering type guys. Everything from the clean lines of the mount itself, to the 12pt nuts on the studs (!) which were part of the horizontal split ring (!), to the intricate design of the mechanism and lever which locks the mount in place on a Picatinny rail impressed me. Equally impressive, or perhaps more so, was the fact that the Bobro mount doesn't need to be manually adjusted; the mount self-adjusts to the rail as it is installed.

However, one does not normally associate intricate mechanisms with firearms or firearm accessories, at least ones that work in all conditions. In fairness to the Bobro product, as intricate mechanisms go, it's not very intricate. However, compared to the very simple (and effective) LaRue mount, it's fairly complicated. Does this complexity negatively affect the mount's performance? I don't believe so.

Complexity, in this case, does mean size, and size could affect performance in a roundabout way. Here's a view of the Bobro and LaRue mounts.



Bobro and ADM...



LaRue and ADM.



My initial concern was that the Bobro's lever would snag on gear, whether on a vest, chest rig, or plate carrier.

I didn't encounter any problems with the Bobro mount at the range, though I was wearing a relatively low profile chest rig with only a double M16 mag pouch and a pistol in a holster. I still believe that the lever could hook something important, such as the wires/cables/antennas of a PRR or 148. Unfortunately, I don't have any of those to test.

As for its main duty, properly holding the Aimpoint CCO and retaining zero after being removed and installed an undetermined number of times, the mount performed spectacularly. I noticed no shift in point of impact after dozens of removal/installation cycles. It should be noted that both the LaRue and ADM mounts performed similarly in this portion of the test. I performed an additional test with the Bobro mount, involving a fair amount of dirt on the upper receiver; the mount still returned to zero despite the dirt interference. This was quite impressive to me, and put to rest my earlier concerns that the mount was too intricate and wouldn't perform well in the field.

All three mounts have some sort of locking provision. All three can be operated easily with one hand, though the Bobro mount's lever moves with considerable force - I am reminded of an assisted opening knife blade. The first time I uninstalled the mount, the lever slapped my index finger as if I was being punished for reaching into the cookie jar. No big deal - keep your fingers clear of the lever's range of motion. The mount, however, does start to wear on itself after a while. I don't believe that this is of any practical consequence.



Also, no real wear was noted on the upper receiver after using the mount. It does not sit flush at the end of the receiver; this does not really matter to me, as it still performs very well.

Which mount would I recommend? If you're on a budget, the ADM mount will serve you quite well. It's also very hard to go wrong with a LaRue optic mount. However, if you're willing to pay the $160 price tag for the Bobro 180 or 150, you won't be disappointed.

I made multiple range trips and fired about 800 rounds between the two rifles that this mount was tested with. I encountered no issues of any kind. I'll continue testing as long as I have the optic and mount, and will report back if anything changes. I'll be posting an update later this week with some additional testing.

As always a great review.
Thanks

In the last picture, there is a bolt to the left of the lever. Does this bolt have a function or does it hold the mount together?

Also, how does the locking mechanism work?

That bolt attaches the locking lever assembly to the mount. There's another on the right hand side.

My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that the lever pushes on a plate of some kind which which serves to distributes force equally between two large and quite powerful springs, which press against a clamp. These springs push the clamp against the rail with a LOT of force, and they are what allows the mount to adjust to pretty much any rail. This is unlike the springs on the ADM mount, which only serve to push the clamping bar away from the rail in order to facilitate removal, and aren't a necessary part.

Marshall,

Could you shoot me a price on the extended scope mount in your pic?  I'm still waiting to get home from this TDY so I can send my ID into Bobro to see what their Mil discount is, would be nice to have an idea what the starting price is.  I want one for my boomstick bad.

Thanks.

Outstanding, thank you very much.

quite the complex mechanism......just sayin...

A quick comment - Tore the upper down, installed a FF rail, reassembled.

Put the optic back in the Bobro mount...POI had shifted by about 1/2 MOA.

That's pretty impressive if you ask me.

Again, I'm continuing to work with the mount, should have some more info soon.

87GN

You said there was no real wear to the rail with the Bobro.

Could you please go into more detail on this?

How does the rail wear compare to the LaRue?

LaRue mounts don't wear the rail if adjusted properly.  More ARFCOM folklore.  

Actually they MUST wear the rail a TINY amount each and every time they are mounted by virtue of their design.  Its not enough to matter for hundreds of mounts and dismounts but wear does and MUST occur.  You cannot have moving friction between two parts and experience NO wear.  The key is to determine HOW MUCH wear there will be.  IMO it is not enough to matter.

For now.  Where it will become a significant issue will be with weapons like the ACR with it's plastic rail.  While steel/aluminum rails would effectively resist wear, a plastic/polymer rail could possibly even experience dimension change.  My plan is use to Bobro exclusively when equipping my ACR, whenever that will be.  Larue really needs to introduce a design like this as a follow on generation of mounting system.

They do?  Seems to me they've been QUITE successful with their current QD design.  Somehow I don't think plastic rifles are going to take the market by storm any time soon.  I think LaRue just might be ok.  

When I was beating the crap out of the QD VFGs, the LT window lever did in fact deform the aluminum to the point that standard accessories do not lock in very well at that point. However, that was a product taken well outside its normal operating "window" and I have never seen nor do I expect to see similar wear with any other LT product in anything that could be defined as normal, hard, or extreme use.

The upper receiver of guns like the ACR and SCAR do not have a plastic rail, they are aluminum just like the AR.

...especially considering the rail on the ACR will be aluminum, as will the quad rail, if I am remembering correctly.

You are correct.

Good writeup, I have all 3, I prefer Bobro & Larue way over ADM, IMO Larue has an edge in only 2 areas
1) Larue Aimpoint combo price, you can't beat it, if Bobro or it's retailers would match it, they would have a lot more sales.
2) the battery mount in the LT129