AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Quick release? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 11/27/2016 8:46:56 PM EDT
|
I am picking up a rifle this week and looking at getting a 1-4 or 1-6 scope. I am also considering a red dot. Instead of choosing one or the other I was curious if anyone made a quality quick release that you don't have to zero in every time you remove and re-install.
Recommendations? |
| This thread comes up almost every day. Everyone has a pet brand, most trash other brands to justify their purchases. I've had all the major ones, to include ADM, GG&G, GDI, LT, and Bobro. All have met my expectation and worked fine. I don't like the ARMS clamping tech, and it's also the only one I've ever had issues with. All others will likely work interchangeably for your needs. |
| My main hunting rifle is a 12" 6.8. During daylight hours it sports a 1-6X and as soon as the sun sets it sports a M4S, both in LaRue mounts. I have swapped back and forth probably over 100 times and it's nice to be confident that my zero hasn't been compromised. |
|
Noone makes a QD that I view as robust or reliable.
If you want a RDS and a Scope, get a quality "torque to spec" mount for each. For the scope, I would recommend Leupold ISMS, geissele, KAC, and Nightforce. For the red-dot, I'd recommend Geissele. If you torque to spec, you will get a RTZ AT LEAST as good as any QD on the market. This doesn't go for just Geissele, either, regardless of what they'd like to market. |
|
Quoted:
Noone makes a QD that I view as robust or reliable. If you want a RDS and a Scope, get a quality "torque to spec" mount for each. For the scope, I would recommend Leupold ISMS, geissele, KAC, and Nightforce. For the red-dot, I'd recommend Geissele. If you torque to spec, you will get a RTZ AT LEAST as good as any QD on the market. This doesn't go for just Geissele, either, regardless of what they'd like to market. What testing or empiricism gives you this conclusion on QD's? |
|
Quoted:
What testing or empiricism gives you this conclusion on QD's? Quoted:
Quoted:
Noone makes a QD that I view as robust or reliable. If you want a RDS and a Scope, get a quality "torque to spec" mount for each. For the scope, I would recommend Leupold ISMS, geissele, KAC, and Nightforce. For the red-dot, I'd recommend Geissele. If you torque to spec, you will get a RTZ AT LEAST as good as any QD on the market. This doesn't go for just Geissele, either, regardless of what they'd like to market. What testing or empiricism gives you this conclusion on QD's? Me, too. What testing or emperical data, please? All I can say is that two Larue SPR scope mounts have return to zero capability better than I can shoot. I'm talking about swapping pre-sighted scopes, one 3-9x40mm, the other 6-24x50mm, on the same match grade Lilja barreled AR, capable of well under 1 MOA with match ammo. I cannot detect any change in point of impact. Any change is within my measureable margin of error. The Larue SPR mounts have seen a lot of military duty in very hostile environments. My duty grade Deltapoint Pro red dot is in an ADM QD. What Geissele mount do you recommend that has a DP Pro base pattern? Oh, right, they don't make one. Love their triggers, though. |
|
Quoted:
What testing or empiricism gives you this conclusion on QD's? Quoted:
Quoted:
Noone makes a QD that I view as robust or reliable. If you want a RDS and a Scope, get a quality "torque to spec" mount for each. For the scope, I would recommend Leupold ISMS, geissele, KAC, and Nightforce. For the red-dot, I'd recommend Geissele. If you torque to spec, you will get a RTZ AT LEAST as good as any QD on the market. This doesn't go for just Geissele, either, regardless of what they'd like to market. What testing or empiricism gives you this conclusion on QD's? Empiricism: The QD mounts with the absolute most tension apply only 170# to the rail. 65 inch-pound torqued crossbolts apply 1200# of clamping force. SBU testing has shown that QD mounts are not as robust as "hard mounts" during impacts (simulated soldier falling on rifle/optic, dropping rifle/optic, etc.) I hunt in rocky terrain, and yeah, I've fallen on wet leaves a time or to, luckily never on my rifle. I have also read several reviews that depict just this sort of issue, and the need to clamp down on some "QD" mount adjustments so hard that they are no-longer tool-less QD. Making it even more rediculous to go QD than a proper 65 inch pound crossbolt. All the downsides, none of the upsides. Here is a link to one of many: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/gearscout/2012/05/08/review-leupold-mark6-1-6x20mm-riflescope/32165719/ Objective: John McPhee and many who have taken his heavy .308 classes (read from their AAR's on various sites) have seen a lot of broken and "shot loose" QD mounts from various makers. Not chi-com junk, either. Also, regarding torque to spec, I have tested Geissle and Nightforce, and found them to RTZ when torqued correctly (and even incorrectly) about as well as can be expected (to well under 1 minute). Subjective: I have not once dumped my optic "in a hurry". If I had to, I doubt any QD would be fast enough, because even the Bobro (a single lever) is slower than rotating the rifle a few degrees and engaging with offset irons. ETA: If you use your gear gently and don't need it to stand up to much abuse, any QD on the market is capable of MORE than delivering for your needs, as long as 0.5 MOA RTZ or better is all you require. If you want the best RTZ, it's Bobro. Make sure it fits in your rail properly before you go all bang-bang with it, though, because if it doesn't, that recoil foot is going to head for the hills (the screws holding it will snap) and it will then slide under recoil. |
|
Quoted:
Empiricism: The QD mounts with the absolute most tension apply only 170# to the rail. 65 inch-pound torqued crossbolts apply 1200# of clamping force. SBU testing has shown that QD mounts are not as robust as "hard mounts" during impacts (simulated soldier falling on rifle/optic, dropping rifle/optic, etc.) I hunt in rocky terrain, and yeah, I've fallen on wet leaves a time or to, luckily never on my rifle. I have also read several reviews that depict just this sort of issue, and the need to clamp down on some "QD" mount adjustments so hard that they are no-longer tool-less QD. Making it even more rediculous to go QD than a proper 65 inch pound crossbolt. All the downsides, none of the upsides. Here is a link to one of many: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/gearscout/2012/05/08/review-leupold-mark6-1-6x20mm-riflescope/32165719/ Objective: John McPhee and many who have taken his heavy .308 classes (read from their AAR's on various sites) have seen a lot of broken and "shot loose" QD mounts from various makers. Not chi-com junk, either. Also, regarding torque to spec, I have tested Geissle and Nightforce, and found them to RTZ when torqued correctly (and even incorrectly) about as well as can be expected (to well under 1 minute). Subjective: I have not once dumped my optic "in a hurry". If I had to, I doubt any QD would be fast enough, because even the Bobro (a single lever) is slower than rotating the rifle a few degrees and engaging with offset irons. ETA: If you use your gear gently and don't need it to stand up to much abuse, any QD on the market is capable of MORE than delivering for your needs, as long as 0.5 MOA RTZ or better is all you require. If you want the best RTZ, it's Bobro. Make sure it fits in your rail properly before you go all bang-bang with it, though, because if it doesn't, that recoil foot is going to head for the hills (the screws holding it will snap) and it will then slide under recoil. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Noone makes a QD that I view as robust or reliable. If you want a RDS and a Scope, get a quality "torque to spec" mount for each. For the scope, I would recommend Leupold ISMS, geissele, KAC, and Nightforce. For the red-dot, I'd recommend Geissele. If you torque to spec, you will get a RTZ AT LEAST as good as any QD on the market. This doesn't go for just Geissele, either, regardless of what they'd like to market. What testing or empiricism gives you this conclusion on QD's? Empiricism: The QD mounts with the absolute most tension apply only 170# to the rail. 65 inch-pound torqued crossbolts apply 1200# of clamping force. SBU testing has shown that QD mounts are not as robust as "hard mounts" during impacts (simulated soldier falling on rifle/optic, dropping rifle/optic, etc.) I hunt in rocky terrain, and yeah, I've fallen on wet leaves a time or to, luckily never on my rifle. I have also read several reviews that depict just this sort of issue, and the need to clamp down on some "QD" mount adjustments so hard that they are no-longer tool-less QD. Making it even more rediculous to go QD than a proper 65 inch pound crossbolt. All the downsides, none of the upsides. Here is a link to one of many: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/gearscout/2012/05/08/review-leupold-mark6-1-6x20mm-riflescope/32165719/ Objective: John McPhee and many who have taken his heavy .308 classes (read from their AAR's on various sites) have seen a lot of broken and "shot loose" QD mounts from various makers. Not chi-com junk, either. Also, regarding torque to spec, I have tested Geissle and Nightforce, and found them to RTZ when torqued correctly (and even incorrectly) about as well as can be expected (to well under 1 minute). Subjective: I have not once dumped my optic "in a hurry". If I had to, I doubt any QD would be fast enough, because even the Bobro (a single lever) is slower than rotating the rifle a few degrees and engaging with offset irons. ETA: If you use your gear gently and don't need it to stand up to much abuse, any QD on the market is capable of MORE than delivering for your needs, as long as 0.5 MOA RTZ or better is all you require. If you want the best RTZ, it's Bobro. Make sure it fits in your rail properly before you go all bang-bang with it, though, because if it doesn't, that recoil foot is going to head for the hills (the screws holding it will snap) and it will then slide under recoil. Bobro has been proven to not be the best courtesy of users here who have talked about these subjects through and through and relaying their experiences long before your join date. One has had his lose zero repeatedly. So much for it being the best, as it's the worst after reading up on his AAR of it. My ADM does not lose its zero. My ADM levers is faster than the knobs that have to be super tightened so they will not lose zero and so they will not fall off. Nothing but the tried and true still returning to zero and no hype ADM and LaRue for me. |
|
Quoted:
Offset irons have a tendency to hang up into things, no thanks. I like being able to egress in and out of places without getting caught on things. I'm also a southpaw, off sets are not made for shooters like me and I digress, even if one was made, still a big nope. Bobro has been proven to not be the best courtesy of users here who have talked about these subjects through and through and relaying their experiences long before your join date. One has had his lose zero repeatedly. So much for it being the best, as it's the worst after reading up on his AAR of it. My ADM does not lose its zero. My ADM levers is faster than the knobs that have to be super tightened so they will not lose zero and so they will not fall off. Nothing but the tried and true still returning to zero and no hype ADM and LaRue for me. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Noone makes a QD that I view as robust or reliable. If you want a RDS and a Scope, get a quality "torque to spec" mount for each. For the scope, I would recommend Leupold ISMS, geissele, KAC, and Nightforce. For the red-dot, I'd recommend Geissele. If you torque to spec, you will get a RTZ AT LEAST as good as any QD on the market. This doesn't go for just Geissele, either, regardless of what they'd like to market. What testing or empiricism gives you this conclusion on QD's? Empiricism: The QD mounts with the absolute most tension apply only 170# to the rail. 65 inch-pound torqued crossbolts apply 1200# of clamping force. SBU testing has shown that QD mounts are not as robust as "hard mounts" during impacts (simulated soldier falling on rifle/optic, dropping rifle/optic, etc.) I hunt in rocky terrain, and yeah, I've fallen on wet leaves a time or to, luckily never on my rifle. I have also read several reviews that depict just this sort of issue, and the need to clamp down on some "QD" mount adjustments so hard that they are no-longer tool-less QD. Making it even more rediculous to go QD than a proper 65 inch pound crossbolt. All the downsides, none of the upsides. Here is a link to one of many: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/gearscout/2012/05/08/review-leupold-mark6-1-6x20mm-riflescope/32165719/ Objective: John McPhee and many who have taken his heavy .308 classes (read from their AAR's on various sites) have seen a lot of broken and "shot loose" QD mounts from various makers. Not chi-com junk, either. Also, regarding torque to spec, I have tested Geissle and Nightforce, and found them to RTZ when torqued correctly (and even incorrectly) about as well as can be expected (to well under 1 minute). Subjective: I have not once dumped my optic "in a hurry". If I had to, I doubt any QD would be fast enough, because even the Bobro (a single lever) is slower than rotating the rifle a few degrees and engaging with offset irons. ETA: If you use your gear gently and don't need it to stand up to much abuse, any QD on the market is capable of MORE than delivering for your needs, as long as 0.5 MOA RTZ or better is all you require. If you want the best RTZ, it's Bobro. Make sure it fits in your rail properly before you go all bang-bang with it, though, because if it doesn't, that recoil foot is going to head for the hills (the screws holding it will snap) and it will then slide under recoil. Bobro has been proven to not be the best courtesy of users here who have talked about these subjects through and through and relaying their experiences long before your join date. One has had his lose zero repeatedly. So much for it being the best, as it's the worst after reading up on his AAR of it. My ADM does not lose its zero. My ADM levers is faster than the knobs that have to be super tightened so they will not lose zero and so they will not fall off. Nothing but the tried and true still returning to zero and no hype ADM and LaRue for me. I hope it continues to work well for you. They do make offset irons for lefties though, in case others are wondering. Me? I personally don't run offsets, and only run BUIS because...why not? The odds of my optic taking a dump are lower than the odds of a qd mount taking a dump. CAG has the same philosophy, so I guess I'm in decent company, not to be a cagfag. |
|
Quoted:
Empiricism: The QD mounts with the absolute most tension apply only 170# to the rail. 65 inch-pound torqued crossbolts apply 1200# of clamping force. SBU testing has shown that QD mounts are not as robust as "hard mounts" during impacts (simulated soldier falling on rifle/optic, dropping rifle/optic, etc.) I hunt in rocky terrain, and yeah, I've fallen on wet leaves a time or to, luckily never on my rifle. I have also read several reviews that depict just this sort of issue, and the need to clamp down on some "QD" mount adjustments so hard that they are no-longer tool-less QD. Making it even more rediculous to go QD than a proper 65 inch pound crossbolt. All the downsides, none of the upsides. Here is a link to one of many: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/gearscout/2012/05/08/review-leupold-mark6-1-6x20mm-riflescope/32165719/ Objective: John McPhee and many who have taken his heavy .308 classes (read from their AAR's on various sites) have seen a lot of broken and "shot loose" QD mounts from various makers. Not chi-com junk, either. Also, regarding torque to spec, I have tested Geissle and Nightforce, and found them to RTZ when torqued correctly (and even incorrectly) about as well as can be expected (to well under 1 minute). Subjective: I have not once dumped my optic "in a hurry". If I had to, I doubt any QD would be fast enough, because even the Bobro (a single lever) is slower than rotating the rifle a few degrees and engaging with offset irons. ETA: If you use your gear gently and don't need it to stand up to much abuse, any QD on the market is capable of MORE than delivering for your needs, as long as 0.5 MOA RTZ or better is all you require. If you want the best RTZ, it's Bobro. Make sure it fits in your rail properly before you go all bang-bang with it, though, because if it doesn't, that recoil foot is going to head for the hills (the screws holding it will snap) and it will then slide under recoil. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Noone makes a QD that I view as robust or reliable. If you want a RDS and a Scope, get a quality "torque to spec" mount for each. For the scope, I would recommend Leupold ISMS, geissele, KAC, and Nightforce. For the red-dot, I'd recommend Geissele. If you torque to spec, you will get a RTZ AT LEAST as good as any QD on the market. This doesn't go for just Geissele, either, regardless of what they'd like to market. What testing or empiricism gives you this conclusion on QD's? Empiricism: The QD mounts with the absolute most tension apply only 170# to the rail. 65 inch-pound torqued crossbolts apply 1200# of clamping force. SBU testing has shown that QD mounts are not as robust as "hard mounts" during impacts (simulated soldier falling on rifle/optic, dropping rifle/optic, etc.) I hunt in rocky terrain, and yeah, I've fallen on wet leaves a time or to, luckily never on my rifle. I have also read several reviews that depict just this sort of issue, and the need to clamp down on some "QD" mount adjustments so hard that they are no-longer tool-less QD. Making it even more rediculous to go QD than a proper 65 inch pound crossbolt. All the downsides, none of the upsides. Here is a link to one of many: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/gearscout/2012/05/08/review-leupold-mark6-1-6x20mm-riflescope/32165719/ Objective: John McPhee and many who have taken his heavy .308 classes (read from their AAR's on various sites) have seen a lot of broken and "shot loose" QD mounts from various makers. Not chi-com junk, either. Also, regarding torque to spec, I have tested Geissle and Nightforce, and found them to RTZ when torqued correctly (and even incorrectly) about as well as can be expected (to well under 1 minute). Subjective: I have not once dumped my optic "in a hurry". If I had to, I doubt any QD would be fast enough, because even the Bobro (a single lever) is slower than rotating the rifle a few degrees and engaging with offset irons. ETA: If you use your gear gently and don't need it to stand up to much abuse, any QD on the market is capable of MORE than delivering for your needs, as long as 0.5 MOA RTZ or better is all you require. If you want the best RTZ, it's Bobro. Make sure it fits in your rail properly before you go all bang-bang with it, though, because if it doesn't, that recoil foot is going to head for the hills (the screws holding it will snap) and it will then slide under recoil. All the link tells me is that for extreme duty Larue's levers need to be very tight. Once that was done, the mount performed superbly. I do that anyway. I run Tally QD rings and bases on my hunting bolt guns, have for about 20 years. Some have taken pretty bad tumbles, none have ever shifted POI. Hunting in heavy rain or other bad weather may make it impossible to use a scope. Removing it and hunting with irons, does not mean "dumping" the scope quickly. Knowing it will return to zero without tools when the weather improves has its benefits. So does carrying two different QD mounted pre-sighted optics for the same rifle on a remote hunt, wbere you may need a higher powered scope to shoot across a beenfield or down a power right of way in the morning and a low powered scope or red dot when hunting in heavy woods later that same day. I'm just a 66 year old hunter shooting deer for many decades under a lot of varied conditions. I'm not encountering the problems of which you complain. |
|
Quoted:
All the link tells me is that for extreme duty Larue's levers need to be very tight. Once that was done, the mount performed superbly. I do that anyway. I run Tally QD rings and bases on my hunting bolt guns, have for about 20 years. Some have taken pretty bad tumbles, none have ever shifted POI. Hunting in heavy rain or other bad weather may make it impossible to use a scope. Removing it and hunting with irons, does not mean "dumping" the scope quickly. Knowing it will return to zero without tools when the weather improves has its benefits. So does carrying two different QD mounted pre-sighted optics for the same rifle on a remote hunt, wbere you may need a higher powered scope to shoot across a beenfield or down a power right of way in the morning and a low powered scope or red dot when hunting in heavy woods later that same day. I'm just a 66 year old hunter shooting deer for many decades under a lot of varied conditions. I'm not encountering the problems of which you complain. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Noone makes a QD that I view as robust or reliable. If you want a RDS and a Scope, get a quality "torque to spec" mount for each. For the scope, I would recommend Leupold ISMS, geissele, KAC, and Nightforce. For the red-dot, I'd recommend Geissele. If you torque to spec, you will get a RTZ AT LEAST as good as any QD on the market. This doesn't go for just Geissele, either, regardless of what they'd like to market. What testing or empiricism gives you this conclusion on QD's? Empiricism: The QD mounts with the absolute most tension apply only 170# to the rail. 65 inch-pound torqued crossbolts apply 1200# of clamping force. SBU testing has shown that QD mounts are not as robust as "hard mounts" during impacts (simulated soldier falling on rifle/optic, dropping rifle/optic, etc.) I hunt in rocky terrain, and yeah, I've fallen on wet leaves a time or to, luckily never on my rifle. I have also read several reviews that depict just this sort of issue, and the need to clamp down on some "QD" mount adjustments so hard that they are no-longer tool-less QD. Making it even more rediculous to go QD than a proper 65 inch pound crossbolt. All the downsides, none of the upsides. Here is a link to one of many: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/gearscout/2012/05/08/review-leupold-mark6-1-6x20mm-riflescope/32165719/ Objective: John McPhee and many who have taken his heavy .308 classes (read from their AAR's on various sites) have seen a lot of broken and "shot loose" QD mounts from various makers. Not chi-com junk, either. Also, regarding torque to spec, I have tested Geissle and Nightforce, and found them to RTZ when torqued correctly (and even incorrectly) about as well as can be expected (to well under 1 minute). Subjective: I have not once dumped my optic "in a hurry". If I had to, I doubt any QD would be fast enough, because even the Bobro (a single lever) is slower than rotating the rifle a few degrees and engaging with offset irons. ETA: If you use your gear gently and don't need it to stand up to much abuse, any QD on the market is capable of MORE than delivering for your needs, as long as 0.5 MOA RTZ or better is all you require. If you want the best RTZ, it's Bobro. Make sure it fits in your rail properly before you go all bang-bang with it, though, because if it doesn't, that recoil foot is going to head for the hills (the screws holding it will snap) and it will then slide under recoil. All the link tells me is that for extreme duty Larue's levers need to be very tight. Once that was done, the mount performed superbly. I do that anyway. I run Tally QD rings and bases on my hunting bolt guns, have for about 20 years. Some have taken pretty bad tumbles, none have ever shifted POI. Hunting in heavy rain or other bad weather may make it impossible to use a scope. Removing it and hunting with irons, does not mean "dumping" the scope quickly. Knowing it will return to zero without tools when the weather improves has its benefits. So does carrying two different QD mounted pre-sighted optics for the same rifle on a remote hunt, wbere you may need a higher powered scope to shoot across a beenfield or down a power right of way in the morning and a low powered scope or red dot when hunting in heavy woods later that same day. I'm just a 66 year old hunter shooting deer for many decades under a lot of varied conditions. I'm not encountering the problems of which you complain. When you get a LaRue mount tight enough for it to be "solid", it's no-longer tool-less QD. You are talking about administrative tasks in both cases. That is to say, you are not under a time constraint, and your goal is the removal of said optic in an admin environment (the deer blind, hunting camp, while taking a break in the woods, etc.). In this environment, I find that a leatherman type tool, or, if we are to be uber-precise, a Seekonk pre=set 65 in-lb wrench with a 1/2" socket will easily accomplish the same thing as the "QD" mount, and with just as much (if not more) precision if/when the optic is replaced, and with much more secure joint between optic and rifle. The first and primary purpose of my mount is to affix my optic solidly to my rifle. I am not going to compromise that primary objective to make admin tasks arguably easier. I will note that I do not carry multiple optics around with me when hunting, but have, on occassion, deemed that it might be a good idea to be able to take the optic off, as you outlined above. To that end, I use the mil-spec versions of the Nightforce Unitmount, the Geissele, and the Leupold ISMS MK6/8 systems. They all afford me the ability to remove/re-attach the optic as an admin task using anything that fits into the slots of the crossbolt nuts and affords leverage. I have not found them to be torque-dependent, either, although if I have my way, they are set at 65 in-lb. |
|
Quoted:
When you get a LaRue mount tight enough for it to be "solid", it's no-longer tool-less QD. You are talking about administrative tasks in both cases. That is to say, you are not under a time constraint, and your goal is the removal of said optic in an admin environment (the deer blind, hunting camp, while taking a break in the woods, etc.). In this environment, I find that a leatherman type tool, or, if we are to be uber-precise, a Seekonk pre=set 65 in-lb wrench with a 1/2" socket will easily accomplish the same thing as the "QD" mount, and with just as much (if not more) precision if/when the optic is replaced, and with much more secure joint between optic and rifle. The first and primary purpose of my mount is to affix my optic solidly to my rifle. I am not going to compromise that primary objective to make admin tasks arguably easier. I will note that I do not carry multiple optics around with me when hunting, but have, on occassion, deemed that it might be a good idea to be able to take the optic off, as you outlined above. To that end, I use the mil-spec versions of the Nightforce Unitmount, the Geissele, and the Leupold ISMS MK6/8 systems. They all afford me the ability to remove/re-attach the optic as an admin task using anything that fits into the slots of the crossbolt nuts and affords leverage. I have not found them to be torque-dependent, either, although if I have my way, they are set at 65 in-lb. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Noone makes a QD that I view as robust or reliable. If you want a RDS and a Scope, get a quality "torque to spec" mount for each. For the scope, I would recommend Leupold ISMS, geissele, KAC, and Nightforce. For the red-dot, I'd recommend Geissele. If you torque to spec, you will get a RTZ AT LEAST as good as any QD on the market. This doesn't go for just Geissele, either, regardless of what they'd like to market. What testing or empiricism gives you this conclusion on QD's? Empiricism: The QD mounts with the absolute most tension apply only 170# to the rail. 65 inch-pound torqued crossbolts apply 1200# of clamping force. SBU testing has shown that QD mounts are not as robust as "hard mounts" during impacts (simulated soldier falling on rifle/optic, dropping rifle/optic, etc.) I hunt in rocky terrain, and yeah, I've fallen on wet leaves a time or to, luckily never on my rifle. I have also read several reviews that depict just this sort of issue, and the need to clamp down on some "QD" mount adjustments so hard that they are no-longer tool-less QD. Making it even more rediculous to go QD than a proper 65 inch pound crossbolt. All the downsides, none of the upsides. Here is a link to one of many: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/gearscout/2012/05/08/review-leupold-mark6-1-6x20mm-riflescope/32165719/ Objective: John McPhee and many who have taken his heavy .308 classes (read from their AAR's on various sites) have seen a lot of broken and "shot loose" QD mounts from various makers. Not chi-com junk, either. Also, regarding torque to spec, I have tested Geissle and Nightforce, and found them to RTZ when torqued correctly (and even incorrectly) about as well as can be expected (to well under 1 minute). Subjective: I have not once dumped my optic "in a hurry". If I had to, I doubt any QD would be fast enough, because even the Bobro (a single lever) is slower than rotating the rifle a few degrees and engaging with offset irons. ETA: If you use your gear gently and don't need it to stand up to much abuse, any QD on the market is capable of MORE than delivering for your needs, as long as 0.5 MOA RTZ or better is all you require. If you want the best RTZ, it's Bobro. Make sure it fits in your rail properly before you go all bang-bang with it, though, because if it doesn't, that recoil foot is going to head for the hills (the screws holding it will snap) and it will then slide under recoil. All the link tells me is that for extreme duty Larue's levers need to be very tight. Once that was done, the mount performed superbly. I do that anyway. I run Tally QD rings and bases on my hunting bolt guns, have for about 20 years. Some have taken pretty bad tumbles, none have ever shifted POI. Hunting in heavy rain or other bad weather may make it impossible to use a scope. Removing it and hunting with irons, does not mean "dumping" the scope quickly. Knowing it will return to zero without tools when the weather improves has its benefits. So does carrying two different QD mounted pre-sighted optics for the same rifle on a remote hunt, wbere you may need a higher powered scope to shoot across a beenfield or down a power right of way in the morning and a low powered scope or red dot when hunting in heavy woods later that same day. I'm just a 66 year old hunter shooting deer for many decades under a lot of varied conditions. I'm not encountering the problems of which you complain. When you get a LaRue mount tight enough for it to be "solid", it's no-longer tool-less QD. You are talking about administrative tasks in both cases. That is to say, you are not under a time constraint, and your goal is the removal of said optic in an admin environment (the deer blind, hunting camp, while taking a break in the woods, etc.). In this environment, I find that a leatherman type tool, or, if we are to be uber-precise, a Seekonk pre=set 65 in-lb wrench with a 1/2" socket will easily accomplish the same thing as the "QD" mount, and with just as much (if not more) precision if/when the optic is replaced, and with much more secure joint between optic and rifle. The first and primary purpose of my mount is to affix my optic solidly to my rifle. I am not going to compromise that primary objective to make admin tasks arguably easier. I will note that I do not carry multiple optics around with me when hunting, but have, on occassion, deemed that it might be a good idea to be able to take the optic off, as you outlined above. To that end, I use the mil-spec versions of the Nightforce Unitmount, the Geissele, and the Leupold ISMS MK6/8 systems. They all afford me the ability to remove/re-attach the optic as an admin task using anything that fits into the slots of the crossbolt nuts and affords leverage. I have not found them to be torque-dependent, either, although if I have my way, they are set at 65 in-lb. Sorry, but my QD mounts stay tight, are not moving, and return to zero without tools. Simple as that. I hear what you are saying, but there are simply too many of us with the same practical and successful QD mount experience. My first QD mounts, which I still have, are on two hunting rifles made and installed on those rifles over 50 years ago. They have Balvar scopes and mounts from Bausch & Lomb. They have been through hell and back and still hold zero and permit RTZ swapping of two different magnification range scopes on each rifle to less than 1 MOA even though the v-block mounting system should have theoretically worn over the years. My Talley rings and bases don't move. My ADM mounts don't move. My Larue mounts don't move. Those old B&L mounts have never shifted. We are not discussing cheap junk. We will have to agree to disagree. Your argument will not change the positive experience I have had with a broad variety of QD mounted optics. Nor will it carry much weight, I speculate, with other QD users here. We shall see. Only the known design defect and reported cases of mount shift of Bobro are the exception. You may babble on all day about your "admin tasks". I hunt. I hunt in remote locations in bad terrain and conditions. I need redundency and reliable back up "plan B" capability in the boonies. High quality QD mounts have consistently served well. I've been using a variety of QD mounts for more than forty years. When one of these mounts lets me down, I'll rethink the issue. I suspect I'll be dead before that happens. I suspect the heir who inherits my collection will probably be dead before it happens. I have that much confidence in this equipment. I don't think I'm alone and don't think I use unicorn equipment. |
|
I didn't want to share a picture that Stickman posted from Recoil Web, but here is a liknk that shows RTZ on many of the popular QR mounts.
https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=699061 Even the Burris was less than .25 moa in the RTZ department, and most much less than that. I will say that all mounts have had an issue or two, but Larue or ADM should serve the purpose very well. I prefer Larue myself. Preicey but expensive. I did have a Bobro, that I sold, and still use some ADM's. A Burris PEPR is on a fun gun, and it has remained solid for me. ETA: If I ever drop or bang my rifle enough to damage a Larue mount, than my favorite non QD mount (Aero Precision) would surely have been jacked up also. Maybe not my NF Unimount, but I wouldn't bet a whole paycheck on that. |
|
People gonna see what they want to see, and gonna do what they want to do, but until you can show me a single Geissele, Nightforce, or ISMS/Leupold that has had an issue with staying put when installed even half-way properly, I'll keep using them and let you guys who tote around 2 scopes tell me how heavy and impractical my Seekonk and/or leatherman is to carry around. |
|
Quoted:
People gonna see what they want to see, and gonna do what they want to do, but until you can show me a single Geissele, Nightforce, or ISMS/Leupold that has had an issue with staying put when installed even half-way properly, I'll keep using them and let you guys who tote around 2 scopes tell me how heavy and impractical my Seekonk and/or leatherman is to carry around. QD matters to us. It obviously doesn't to you. Fine, got it. But our way of doing it backed with factual data that shows they RTZ with ADM and LaRue, means more than what you just tried to prove wrong. I want a BUIS. I want a QR that holds zero for ease of storage. I also want a QR to use in case it gets knocked out by the circumstances so I can use the BUIS. A BUIS that isn't catching on things and is nicley folded. A BUIS I can zero at a normal position that I would use when shouldered. FYI, I had a 10/22 that loosened a Leupold knob mount and I lost my zero. Had to use a crescent to tighten it down, then re-zero. I am not not using any mount with thumb screws that loosen even shooting a 22. And you want me to use that on my AR's that I( have a BUIS on?? 
|
|
Quoted:
In red, you mean like yourself? Because that is what you just did. QD matters to us. It obviously doesn't to you. Fine, got it. But our way of doing it backed with factual data that shows they RTZ with ADM and LaRue, means more than what you just tried to prove wrong. I want a BUIS. I want a QR that holds zero for ease of storage. I also want a QR to use in case it gets knocked out by the circumstances so I can use the BUIS. A BUIS that isn't catching on things and is nicley folded. A BUIS I can zero at a normal position that I would use when shouldered. FYI, I had a 10/22 that loosened a Leupold knob mount and I lost my zero. Had to use a crescent to tighten it down, then re-zero. I am not not using any mount with thumb screws that loosen even shooting a 22. And you want me to use that on my AR's that I( have a BUIS on?? Quoted:
Quoted:
People gonna see what they want to see, and gonna do what they want to do, but until you can show me a single Geissele, Nightforce, or ISMS/Leupold that has had an issue with staying put when installed even half-way properly, I'll keep using them and let you guys who tote around 2 scopes tell me how heavy and impractical my Seekonk and/or leatherman is to carry around. QD matters to us. It obviously doesn't to you. Fine, got it. But our way of doing it backed with factual data that shows they RTZ with ADM and LaRue, means more than what you just tried to prove wrong. I want a BUIS. I want a QR that holds zero for ease of storage. I also want a QR to use in case it gets knocked out by the circumstances so I can use the BUIS. A BUIS that isn't catching on things and is nicley folded. A BUIS I can zero at a normal position that I would use when shouldered. FYI, I had a 10/22 that loosened a Leupold knob mount and I lost my zero. Had to use a crescent to tighten it down, then re-zero. I am not not using any mount with thumb screws that loosen even shooting a 22. And you want me to use that on my AR's that I( have a BUIS on?? I won't address the rest of your post (again, because if you read my above responses, you will see that I addressed every point you touched upon, whether you agree with the facts and testimonies I presented, or not. Long story short: I bolt my optics down and don't fuck with them. It works for CAG. It works for millions of hunters the world over. It works for me. YMMV, and I would love to hear the story about the time you removed your optic out of necessity, if you can spare the time to share it.), but I am curious to know specifically what Leupold "knob mount" you had issues with. Can you link me to it? |
|
Quoted:
People gonna see what they want to see, and gonna do what they want to do, but until you can show me a single Geissele, Nightforce, or ISMS/Leupold that has had an issue with staying put when installed even half-way properly, I'll keep using them and let you guys who tote around 2 scopes tell me how heavy and impractical my Seekonk and/or leatherman is to carry around. This makes no sense. Either you have redundency or not, your choice. You gotta take the scope off if it malfunctions or you need a different optic. You can fiddle with 13mm nuts and torque wrenches to your heart's content. Knock yourself out. Or you can flip a lever or two. QD has proven reliable. I do have some fixed mount optics, but have gradually moved to more and more QD mounts because . . . they work and present no problems. The issue is NOT whether the named fixed mounts stay put. Rather, it is the false assumption that we are having problems with high grade QD mounts. If we were, the members of this board are not bashful about raising hell about it. The only complaints I've heard are about the Bobro. Let me be honest: I've had some written "dust ups" with the owner of Larue on this board regarding his demeanor and behavior in some threads. That does not diminish the fact that he makes one hell of a fine QD mount serving superbly all over this planet for people who depend on ruggedness to stay alive and fight to keep us free. Weight is a red herring. In removing or installing a properly mounted scope, no tool at all will always weigh less than even the lightest wrench or leatherman. We do all probably carry various small tools in our kit. But, that doesn't mean having to resort to them is better than flipping a lever in this instance. And those levers securely lock until purposefully unlocked and then flipped. |
|
MS556,
He doesn't get it. Which is fine because he has rights to his opinions. We've seen the input of user experiences and a whole write up on scope mounts by someone who reported an actual problem with Bobro and when it was sent back and still did not hold zero, then decided to put them all to the test and gave us factual results that was impartial to names, mounting styles, and so on. We saw who is on top for our needs, and it's QR. His views are different from ours. But his views are not better than our own, and this is what he needs to learn. By the way, I heard that Midwest Industries has a very good QR one piece as well. I may end up with one, but really my next purchasing will be on who has the cheapest available between LaRue and ADM. |
|
Quoted:
MS556, Hoe doesn't get it. Which is fine because he has rights to his opinions. We've seen the input of user experiences and a whole write up on scope mounts by someone who reported an actual problem with Bobro and when it was sent back and still did not hold zero, then decided to put them all to the test and gave us factual results that was impartial to names, mounting styles, and so on. We saw who is on top for our needs, and it's QR. His views are different from ours. But his views are not better than our own, and this is what he needs to learn. By the way, I heard that Midwest Industries has a very good QR one piece as well. I may end up with one, but really my next purchasing will be on who has the cheapest available between LaRue and ADM. Right you are, sir! The MI mount seems to be virtually identical to ADM, except the tension adjustment is finer. Don't know if that is really an improvement, as my ADM mounts can be properly tensioned. It is so close to ADM I'm surprised there is not a squabble between the two companies about possible patent infringement. ADM's design is rock solid and I like their mounts. I just think they are a bit clunky. I have quite a few of them and they have never let me down. If MI's are half as good, they will do well with them. |
|
It's not 1998, where QD is some exotic tech being pioneered (with ample teething issues) by Gen 1 ARMS mounts. It's almost 2017, and we have a plethora of manufacturers using a variety of QD mechanisms. Each have their pros and cons, but by now all of them work well save for their occassional lemons.
I know everyone has their preferences in this, but to me it's largely Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge. At the end of the day they all work unless you happened to get one that doesn't. My Bobros have all worked fine over the years (in fact they're my favorite), as have my LTs, GDIs, ADMs, and years ago my GG&G. If someone doesn't want to trust the entire concept of QD that's fine, it's their stuff not mine. For absolute precision setups, or one where there are no backup sights or alternate optics etc, I don't use QD either. There are those that just flat don't like automatic transmissions and touchscreen phones either, and that too is ok. But that doesn't mean the tech is bad, just that with any new tech there will always be those holdouts and late adopters. |
|
Quoted:
It's not 1998, where QD is some exotic tech being pioneered (with ample teething issues) by Gen 1 ARMS mounts. It's almost 2017, and we have a plethora of manufacturers using a variety of QD mechanisms. Each have their pros and cons, but by now all of them work well save for their occassional lemons. I know everyone has their preferences in this, but to me it's largely Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge. At the end of the day they all work unless you happened to get one that doesn't. My Bobros have all worked fine over the years (in fact they're my favorite), as have my LTs, GDIs, ADMs, and years ago my GG&G. If someone doesn't want to trust the entire concept of QD that's fine, it's their stuff not mine. For absolute precision setups, or one where there are no backup sights or alternate optics etc, I don't use QD either. There are those that just flat don't like automatic transmissions and touchscreen phones either, and that too is ok. But that doesn't mean the tech is bad, just that with any new tech there will always be those holdouts and late adopters. He'll never get it. Since he joined here in Sept. the majority of his posts have been pissing contests. Those kind of post can say allot about a member here in a short amount of time. Especially the ones who always like to refer to SF to validate their (See: piss contest) argument. You do have the choice to either keep being entertained by his piss contests here like I have or just hit the ignore. Good chance the mods may or may not be along in the near future to shut down another piss thread 
Sorry OP 
Get whatever you feel your situation will dictate. I have always been a Larue/Bobro fanboy. For non QD I personally like the Nightforce unimount. They have all worked outstanding for me whether QD or bolt on with 65 in lbs, and RTZ every time. You will be well served with any of the above mentioned. Unlike certain individuals here I can only speak for what I have owned and used myself and will not subject you to hearsay that I have read on the Internet. Real world experience trumps everything. |
|
Quoted:
He'll never get it. Since he joined here in Sept. the majority of his posts have been pissing contests. Those kind of post can say allot about a member here in a short amount of time. Especially the ones who always like to refer to SF to validate their (See: piss contest) argument. . I am amused that my response is "a pissing contest", and the hive response is somehow not. By the same token, I could just say this forum only wants a pissing contest, look how it argues with me! lol. Also erroneous. It's more of an emotional experience, on here, I've found. Fine and well. I am amused that when asked for references, and I bring up CAG, SBU testing, and other things that it is "even more pissing contest". I am amused that a guy's YouTube video with a sample of 2 or 3 takes precedence over the above. I would be even more amused if I could share the conversations on here that I have had with industry professionals that this forum holds above reproach, but that is privileged, and if I went around sharing private conversations, I wouldn't have much inside data flowing my way anymore, would I? So, it will never happen, so you'll just have to take the information from me that they have deemed okay to post themselves on forums (usually not this one, so I don't believe I can link, per forum rules? I dunno, but here's one https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?15509-LaRue-Mount-Issues) You will note in that link that the same quality of evidence provided here (hearsay/personal experience.) is provided. QD's seem to have a mixed-bag regarding effectiveness. You will note KAC's military sales director chiming in, as well as AAR's from carbine courses, and Dr. Roberts (who is a huge fan of the LT mount, per this thread, also in company, here, with the late Pat Rogers). So yes, many opinions exist, but facts also exist. Sadly, those facts are not nearly as public as they should be, on all fronts, because of the fear of litigation, industry ties, and a whole lot of other things that make the gun industry full of more drama than the hotrod industry (hard to imagine, really). Anyway, there are tons of threads about QD mounts working great, and failing spectacularly. The general consensus is that whatever mount you use in the QD line-up, you get it as tight as you can, and sometimes that means using a strap or boot-lace loop to pull it off, if you intend to use it for more than just square-range experiences. This is because they put much less tension on the rail than torque-to-spec mounts. 50-170# of tension vs. 11-1400# of tension. ^Those numbers are facts. That is the difference. Everyone has---and is entitled to---their opinion, here. How much, is enough? Those are your choices... A follow-up question would be...why are these torque-to-spec screws supposed to be tightened to 1200ish pounds of pressure? Why not 200#'s? One answer is "so they don't come unscrewed". Well...okay, but does the LaRue mount "come unscrewed" at the adjustment nut? Is it anywhere NEAR 65 inch-pounds tight? Okay...so WHY!? do the clamp-on mounts have to be so darn tight??? Ponder it for a while. It is interesting food for thought. |
|
Quoted:
I am amused that my response is "a pissing contest", and the hive response is somehow not. I am amused that when asked for references, and I bring up CAG, SBU testing, and other things that it is "even more pissing contest". I am amused that a guy's YouTube video with a sample of 2 or 3 takes precedence over the above. I would be even more amused if I could share the conversations on here that I have had with industry professionals that this forum holds above reproach, but that is privileged, and it will never happen, so you'll just have to take the information from me that they have deemed okay to post themselves on forums (usually not this one, so I don't believe I can link, per forum rules?) You see that mil icon I have? You're not talking to a weekend warrior who hasn't really used his wares in harsh conditions and is instead babied and safe queened. And you are definitely not talking to someone who doesn't know what he wants or needs because newsflash; You do not know a thing about how I came to the conclusions on just why I prefer QR over some knobs to begin with. And IDGAF what CAG uses or doesn't. Their needs are mission specific, and their needs are also not my needs. I'm not the only one who has specified this to you, but you're being argumentative because it's not sitting in you to let things be with our own experiences telling you why QR's are a very good idea with proven brands. We don't care that we like what you do not like and use what you think we shouldn't use, because the facts we brought in are real world facts and your negative feelings to them will never change them. |
|
Quoted:
This thread comes up almost every day. Everyone has a pet brand, most trash other brands to justify their purchases. I've had all the major ones, to include ADM, GG&G, GDI, LT, and Bobro. All have met my expectation and worked fine. I don't like the ARMS clamping tech, and it's also the only one I've ever had issues with. All others will likely work interchangeably for your needs. I have all of these brands except BOBRO. I used to have BOBRO but after two failed mounts in a row, they're the only one I don't use. Just so we're clear, I don't use Arms either. |
|
Quoted:
The detailed analysis for all of the mounts was conducted by a still serving Marine, not on YouTube. And they were more than just samples. You see that mil icon I have? You're not talking to a weekend warrior who hasn't really used his wares in harsh conditions and is instead babied and safe queened. And you are definitely not talking to someone who doesn't know what he wants or needs because newsflash; You do not know a thing about how I came to the conclusions on just why I prefer QR over some knobs to begin with. And IDGAF what CAG uses or doesn't. Their needs are mission specific, and their needs are also not my needs. I'm not the only one who has specified this to you, but you're being argumentative because it's not sitting in you to let things be with our own experiences telling you why QR's are a very good idea with proven brands. We don't care that we like what you do not like and use what you think we shouldn't use, because the facts we brought in are real world facts and your negative feelings to them will never change them. Which test are you referring to? I was referring to the recent prevailing opinions on Boro due to a couple of mounts that moved under hand pressure, and the video that was made by Jaq depicting this small sample that failed and has made the brand a no go for a few people here. What was the results of your units testing, and how were they arrived at? I'd love to love the QD thing. Believe me, it's a sexy idea all around. I've just had too much shift with them and read too much data on their shortcomings without finding much of anything to support their use except personal anecdotes. The institutional shift away from them, at least, as far as I can tell, is also something that tickled my radar, here. An example of what I mean by sample size is that Jaq here had a few bobros do poorly. Yet one of the units that tested the SCO in Afghanistan (40 mk6 optics, 40 vcog optics, in LaRue and bobros mounts, respectively),has resulted in soldiers who will not use anything but bobros on their personal weapons, now. This, too, is anecdotal. That is what I mean. All of the actual testing is kept under wraps due to numerous liabilities, and we are left with opinions and experiences vs. Actual data. As you can see just in this thread, opinions vary. I am curious if your unit's data is similarly sealed, or if you're cleared to share with the forum on your results? |
|
Quoted:
There's a lot of tension in a thread about mounts.. Keep it up fella's. It's like a soap opera. I had about a five paragraph reply with pro/cons and design changes I would make to Bobro and larue mounts, how the amount of shift either might experience from a loose mount is neglible to most rifles etc, then I accidentally screwed it up before submittal and lost it. Decided I might try again from a desktop sometime where I can type faster. |
|
Quoted:
I had about a five paragraph reply with pro/cons and design changes I would make to Bobro and larue mounts, how the amount of shift either might experience from a loose mount is neglible to most rifles etc, then I accidentally screwed it up before submittal and lost it. Decided I might try again from a desktop sometime where I can type faster. At least we can count on you for some actual data without a bunch of neurotic babbling and bickering. |
|
Quoted:
At least we can count on you for some actual data without a bunch of neurotic babbling and bickering. Link to said data? I have not seen anyone actually post data. The one SBU T&E guy that WAS going to post data was threatened with lawsuits from multiple companies, and thus did not. We are left with industry professional's opinions, YouTube tests, and personal experience datapoints. |
|
Quoted:
Link to said data? I have not seen anyone actually post data. The one SBU T&E guy that WAS going to post data was threatened with lawsuits from multiple companies, and thus did not. We are left with industry professional's opinions, YouTube tests, and personal experience datapoints. I never said anything about posting any kind of data. To be frankly honest I could really give a rats ass. Like I said before, I just like to read the pissing matches in these threads because it's entertaining for me. No disrespect. The mounts that I own and use have worked for me and never came loose and never lost zero and that's all I give a shit about. Could they be improved? In some ways I'm sure yes. They work for me, and I don't plan on being dropped off in the sandbox or doing a mission with Seal team 6 anytime soon. I'm going to leave that to the some of the armchair commandos who are having fantasies of SHTF that like to post in these threads. |
|
Quoted:
I never said anything about posting any kind of data. To be frankly honest I could really give a rats ass. Like I said before, I just like to read the pissing matches in these threads because it's entertaining for me. No disrespect. The mounts that I own and use have worked for me and never came loose and never lost zero and that's all I give a shit about. Could they be improved? In some ways I'm sure yes. They work for me, and I don't plan on being dropped off in the sandbox or doing a mission with Seal team 6 anytime soon. I'm going to leave that to the some of the armchair commandos who are having fantasies of SHTF that like to post in these threads. This is my qualm with mounts and this topic. No real data has been released to the public due to threat of litigation. Everyone has varying experiences. Jaq for example refuses to use Bobro. Stickman LOVES Bobro. The SBU that actually tested Bobro refuses to comment publicly. I will say this, optic mounts has more dirt and drama than aac vs. surefire of old. As to that little tank icon someone else pointed out, someone else with a little tank icon on here said "qd is gay, bolt that shit down". I just don't know who's tank is bigger :/ ....and therein lies the rub. We are left with personal testimony and personal observations. Without calling anyone a liar.."ymmv" seems to be the only thing that is factual regarding various qd mount performance. Until the information from SBU and other actual testing comes to light, the only 2 options are to use your own limited first hand experiences or to piggyback on the decisions and gear choices of whichever industry professional you most admire. Both plans seem flawed to me, but until the general public gets real data, it's what they have to go on. |
|
Quoted:
This is my qualm with mounts and this topic. No real data has been released to the public due to threat of litigation. Everyone has varying experiences. Jaq for example refuses to use Bobro. Stickman LOVES Bobro. The SBU that actually tested Bobro refuses to comment publicly. I will say this, optic mounts has more dirt and drama than aac vs. surefire of old. As to that little tank icon someone else pointed out, someone else with a little tank icon on here said "qd is gay, bolt that shit down". I just don't know who's tank is bigger :/ ....and therein lies the rub. We are left with personal testimony and personal observations. Without calling anyone a liar.."ymmv" seems to be the only thing that is factual regarding various qd mount performance. Until the information from SBU and other actual testing comes to light, the only 2 options are to use your own limited first hand experiences or to piggyback on the decisions and gear choices of whichever industry professional you most admire. Both plans seem flawed to me, but until the general public gets real data, it's what they have to go on. Why are you so obsessed with this all so so much? Why are you so concerned with what other people are using here? Are you on some kind of crusade to save as many lives as you can from using a faulty mount that may get them killed in a SHTF or .............? Do the mounts that you use work for you? If yes than move on with your life. We will all be okay 
Or just keep this thread going for as long as you can. I'm kind of enjoying it actually. Your choice
It is interesting to see what everyone's favorite mount system is. |
|
I've removed and re-attached an Aimpoint on a Larue mount at least 30 times since I zeroed it. I've made no adjustments, and it's still dead-on.
edit: Yes, I realize that it's an Aimpoint and I'm not shooting teeny-tiny little groups with it so I can't notice a 0.25MOA change, but the bullets keep landing where they're supposed to. |
|
Quoted:
Much like the original poster, I was hoping this thread would contain some particular suggestions for quick release mounts. All these responses, and the only truly applicable, on topic answer is a solitary "LaRue". Can you all squabble elsewhere ? I have had good results with LaRue, Bobro, and MI. I favored the MI interface because of the large contact area, stainless full width crossbar, and sexy low profile lever. I favored the Bobro for the no brained install, and very good rtz (better than the MI. The MI gave me a 1moa shift on the first shot, then settled back in. The Bobro had no statistically measurable shift). Some of my LaRue mounts were similar to the MI, some not. When I bought LaRue, it was just them, arms, and ggg in the game, so not a lot to compare them to. There...happy? Basically "take your pick". Because Jaq will be along to say how Bobro sucks and moved on his rail (with video support), while my Bobro mounts have never had that issue. If you want to know the breakdown, LaRue will be the most popular on ar15.com, followed by ADM and Bobro, then MI, ggg, and others. As stated though, if I had to go qd, and I might play with it again, I'd probably go MI. GDI is just so heavy and I'm not a fan of their crossbolt setup. |
|
Quoted:
I am picking up a rifle this week and looking at getting a 1-4 or 1-6 scope. I am also considering a red dot. Instead of choosing one or the other I was curious if anyone made a quality quick release that you don't have to zero in every time you remove and re-install. Recommendations? You do not need special quick detach mounts to have reture to zero capability provided that your rifle has the picatinny rail system. Returning to zero is a function of the pic rail system not the mount. I have quick detach mounts from larue, american defense, gdi, they all return to zero provided that the optic is remounted to the rail the exact same way. I also have cheap rings from UTG and they also return to zero provided again that the optic is mounted to the rail the same way. I mount the optic to same rail slot and push the optic forward as I tighten the mount/rings, pulling back will work as well so long as the optic was initially zerod while mounted the same way. Again the picatinny rail system gives you the consistency to return to zero not the mount. Mounts were designed for AR15 scope mounting solutions at a time when handguards were either not equipped with pic rails, had pic rails not secure enough to mount optics to, or where not monolithic. The mount was needed to push the optic forward so that base of the scope would line up near the charging handle and the scope would not either smack the shooter in the eye after recoil or would not be mounted on an unstable railed handguard and thus lose zero. In recent years the handguards have gotten better and more stable, and only the most basic AR's are sold without freefloated railed handguards. If I had it to do over again I'd buy rings instead of mounts for all of my optics to save cost and mostly weight. I think mounts will become a thing of the past in coming years when the rest of the shooting world comes to the same conclusions that I have as the need for them has been overextended. All that said I perfer the American Defense mounts to the Larue due to; --Larue mounts put scape marks on my gun which is an inherent side effect of their design --American defense locking mechanism has far more contact with the rail surface than Larue. This leads to a stronger lockup. |
|
Quoted:
This is my qualm with mounts and this topic. No real data has been released to the public due to threat of litigation. Everyone has varying experiences. Jaq for example refuses to use Bobro. Stickman LOVES Bobro. The SBU that actually tested Bobro refuses to comment publicly. I will say this, optic mounts has more dirt and drama than aac vs. surefire of old. As to that little tank icon someone else pointed out, someone else with a little tank icon on here said "qd is gay, bolt that shit down". I just don't know who's tank is bigger :/ ....and therein lies the rub. We are left with personal testimony and personal observations. Without calling anyone a liar.."ymmv" seems to be the only thing that is factual regarding various qd mount performance. Until the information from SBU and other actual testing comes to light, the only 2 options are to use your own limited first hand experiences or to piggyback on the decisions and gear choices of whichever industry professional you most admire. Both plans seem flawed to me, but until the general public gets real data, it's what they have to go on. Dress it all you want, and try to downplay the opinions of those with which you disagree, but at the end of the day, there are three, not two choices. The third choice is what is actually at play bere. It is the cumulative practical, in the field experience from a large group of users of QD mounts. This collective, shared experience is much more valid than isolated anecdotal reports or accepting the word of "industry professionals" that can, indeed, be colored by marketing hype. If particular mounts like ADM or Larue are moving when merely adjusted per manufacturer's recomendation (and not over adjusted), the members of this board would be raising unmitigated hell. We are not because they are not. If we have discovered a problem, as with Bobro, it gets reported and spread widely. There is, therefore, reliable evidence to support an informed opinion on the subject of whether two of the top end QD mounts consistently hold zero under typical use, including the field, that being ADM and Larue. Those two do. |
|
Quoted:
Dress it all you want, and try to downplay the opinions of those with which you disagree, but at the end of the day, there are three, not two choices. The third choice iscwhat is actually at play bere. It is tge cumulative practical, in the field experience from a large group of users of QD mounts. This collective, shared experience is much more valid than isolated anecdotal reports or accepting the word of "industry professionals" that can be colored by marketing hype. If particular mounts like LDM or Larue are moving when merely adjusted per manufacturer's recomendation (and not over adjusted), the members of this board would be raising unmitigated hell. We are not. If we have discovered a problem, as with Bobro, it gets reported and spread widely. There is, therefore, reliable evidence to support an informed opinion on the subject of whether two of the top end QD mounts consistently hold zero under typical use, including the field, that being ADM and Larue. Those two do. Quoted:
Dress it all you want, and try to downplay the opinions of those with which you disagree, but at the end of the day, there are three, not two choices. The third choice iscwhat is actually at play bere. It is tge cumulative practical, in the field experience from a large group of users of QD mounts. This collective, shared experience is much more valid than isolated anecdotal reports or accepting the word of "industry professionals" that can be colored by marketing hype. If particular mounts like LDM or Larue are moving when merely adjusted per manufacturer's recomendation (and not over adjusted), the members of this board would be raising unmitigated hell. We are not. If we have discovered a problem, as with Bobro, it gets reported and spread widely. There is, therefore, reliable evidence to support an informed opinion on the subject of whether two of the top end QD mounts consistently hold zero under typical use, including the field, that being ADM and Larue. Those two do.  American Defense Manufacturing RECON-S QD Mount Review ADM returning to Zero.  Failed To Load Title ADM displaying exceptional ability to hold zero in the field. (You can contact West Fork Armory here to learn more: http://www.smallbusinessdb.com/west-fork-armory-llc-conroe-tx-77301.htm ) Ask Nickdrack how awesome LaRue holds up under "typical use". Here he is so you can ask him more: https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_9_4/231513_.html&page=1 Here is what he has said on other forums: After running strictly LaRue QD mounts for nearly 10yrs, I've recently switched to Bobro QD after having wandering zero issues with my LaRue scope mounts.
At a recent John "Shrek" McPhee "Heavy carbine" class that I hosted there were 7 shooters running LaRue mounts and 3 of them lost zero after TD1. https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?10433-Scope-Mounting-to-an-AR15&p=179273&viewfull=1#post179273 You already know of the what was it, two? people who have had so much trouble with Bobro that you wrote them off and have "spread widely" the woes of such. So what I really want to know...is how you're okay with LaRue and ADM, but look down your nose at Bobro, now? I'm just trying to figure out how this works that you've determined that Bobro sucks from a sample of 2 people and 3 mounts total, but similar if not larger samples of LaRue and ADM having issues are ignored, and they are considered G2G and I am reprimanded for not agreeing with the party line over here? Can we also consider Bobro good to go, and just agree to ignore Jaq's experiences, because guys like me have had good Bobro experiences? Or do only site sponsors get a pass, but ADM isn't a sponsor, so wtf? Or are we going to now agree that LaRue and ADM also suck because we have uncovered multiple failures attested to on the internet, some on this very forum? I'm curious which experiences and facts are going to be ignored, and which will be "spread widely". I feel like the Atheist I am, here, saying "If you don't believe in Zeus and Athena and Mars and Anubis and...why don't you understand why I simply believe in 1 less god than you...?" |
|
Quoted:
You do not need special quick detach mounts to have reture to zero capability provided that your rifle has the picatinny rail system. Returning to zero is a function of the pic rail system not the mount. I have quick detach mounts from larue, american defense, gdi, they all return to zero provided that the optic is remounted to the rail the exact same way. I also have cheap rings from UTG and they also return to zero provided again that the optic is mounted to the rail the same way. I mount the optic to same rail slot and push the optic forward as I tighten the mount/rings, pulling back will work as well so long as the optic was initially zerod while mounted the same way. Again the picatinny rail system gives you the consistency to return to zero not the mount. Mounts were designed for AR15 scope mounting solutions at a time when handguards were either not equipped with pic rails, had pic rails not secure enough to mount optics to, or where not monolithic. The mount was needed to push the optic forward so that base of the scope would line up near the charging handle and the scope would not either smack the shooter in the eye after recoil or would not be mounted on an unstable railed handguard and thus lose zero. In recent years the handguards have gotten better and more stable, and only the most basic AR's are sold without freefloated railed handguards. If I had it to do over again I'd buy rings instead of mounts for all of my optics to save cost and mostly weight. I think mounts will become a thing of the past in coming years when the rest of the shooting world comes to the same conclusions that I have as the need for them has been overextended. All that said I perfer the American Defense mounts to the Larue due to; --Larue mounts put scape marks on my gun which is an inherent side effect of their design --American defense locking mechanism has far more contact with the rail surface than Larue. This leads to a stronger lockup. OP this poster makes some very valid points. I have found with most mounts whether they be QD or bolt on that as long as you remount them in the exact same way that you originally mounted them when you zeroed your rifle every time consistently they will return to zero. With my nightforce mounts I use a 65 inch lb torque wrench for the mounting bolts every time I remount them and they returned right to zero. I repaired a friends Remington model 7400 that had Burris rings that I mounted for him with that 65 inch pound torque wrench on the cross bolts, and when I reinstalled the scope after getting finished with his rifle he was still able to take an elk that year at 200 + - yards, and also harvests dear every year since. My Larue mounts have never gouged my rails as long as I keep the surface of the contact greased and I clamp them down pretty tight. One of my biggest reasons that I favor the Larue mounts for some of my applications is because I prefer his type of separate ring halves for an offset piggyback mini RDS. I would have liked to have gone with one of these ring halves from Nightforce but they were a lot more expensive and would have caused the RDS to sit a little higher than I would like. |
|
Quoted:
You know what? I'm going to agree to ignore you like I do with anyone else who cannot accept things with how others have formed their conclusions based on facts on why they use X over Y. ETA: OP, you'll be served well with ADM, LaRue, or MI QR mounts. Good Lord he is relentless isn't he
I'm afraid OP has abandoned his thread, but if he is still here He should just ignore the bickering and make his choice defined by what his needs and budget are. OP if you're reading this I hope you're not getting too discouraged and let us know what you end up purchasing? Good luck with whatever it is and most of us here believe you will be happy with it.. |
|
Quoted:
Good Lord he is relentless isn't he
I'm afraid OP has abandoned his thread, but if he is still here He should just ignore the bickering and make his choice defined by what his needs and budget are. OP if you're reading this I hope you're not getting too discouraged and let us know what you end up purchasing? Good luck with whatever it is and most of us here believe you will be happy with it.. Relentless. Hell, I'll take it, lol. People ask me to support my statements. I do. I'm curious what excuses come of for hating Bobro and loving ADM and LaRue when they all 3 have the same problems. Maybe NickDrak will chime in on this thread himself... |
|
Quoted:
Relentless. Hell, I'll take it, lol. People ask me to support my statements. I do. I'm curious what excuses come of for hating Bobro and loving ADM and LaRue when they all 3 have the same problems. Maybe NickDrak will chime in on this thread himself... The OP asked for a mount for a red dot not a precision optic and you came in here and shit all over his thread. Either save it for GD or start your own thread. Is it that hard to do? Or are you starved for attention? The only thing you have accomplished here is to earn the ignore button from quite a few members here who will now miss out on some of your awesome knowledge and data.
It should be obvious to you that nobody here cares what you have say about any of this. All because of the way in which you presented it. Congratulations. It's a shame that had to happen.
|
|
Great info in this post; the emotion can cloud some empirical facts as well as testing data.
Empirically, I have all Larue QD and they've been solid. I don't plan on changing and find value in the option to remove the optic and confidence POA = POI when mounting again. |
|
Quoted:
 iYN3NT3UGBo</iframe></iframe>
ADM returning to Zero. BA3M4bf56bs</iframe></iframe>
ADM displaying exceptional ability to hold zero in the field. (You can contact West Fork Armory here to learn more: http://www.smallbusinessdb.com/west-fork-armory-llc-conroe-tx-77301.htm ) Ask Nickdrack how awesome LaRue holds up under "typical use". Here he is so you can ask him more: https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_9_4/231513_.html&page=1 Here is what he has said on other forums: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?10433-Scope-Mounting-to-an-AR15&p=179273&viewfull=1#post179273 You already know of the what was it, two? people who have had so much trouble with Bobro that you wrote them off and have "spread widely" the woes of such. So what I really want to know...is how you're okay with LaRue and ADM, but look down your nose at Bobro, now? I'm just trying to figure out how this works that you've determined that Bobro sucks from a sample of 2 people and 3 mounts total, but similar if not larger samples of LaRue and ADM having issues are ignored, and they are considered G2G and I am reprimanded for not agreeing with the party line over here? Can we also consider Bobro good to go, and just agree to ignore Jaq's experiences, because guys like me have had good Bobro experiences? Or do only site sponsors get a pass, but ADM isn't a sponsor, so wtf? Or are we going to now agree that LaRue and ADM also suck because we have uncovered multiple failures attested to on the internet, some on this very forum? I'm curious which experiences and facts are going to be ignored, and which will be "spread widely". I feel like the Atheist I am, here, saying "If you don't believe in Zeus and Athena and Mars and Anubis and...why don't you understand why I simply believe in 1 less god than you...?" Still only weak isolated anecdotal "evidence" versus wide consensus experience. The spread widely facts are tested in the crucible of collective experience knowing that user bias favors over reporting of failures. If a failure occurs here it gets reported - quickly. There just aren't very many. |
|
Quoted:
Still only weak isolated anecdotal "evidence" versus wide consensus experience. The spread widely facts are tested in the crucible of collective experience knowing that user bias favors over reporting of failures. If a failure occurs here it gets reported - quickly. There just aren't very many. Quoted:
Still only weak isolated anecdotal "evidence" versus wide consensus experience. The spread widely facts are tested in the crucible of collective experience knowing that user bias favors over reporting of failures. If a failure occurs here it gets reported - quickly. There just aren't very many. Sample size can't be argued. I agree. Do you now feel that Bobro is just as good because it has had less failures of which we are aware? Quoted:
The OP asked for a mount for a red dot not a precision optic and you came in here and shit all over his thread. Either save it for GD or start your own thread. Is it that hard to do? Or are you starved for attention? The only thing you have accomplished here is to earn the ignore button from quite a few members here who will now miss out on some of your awesome knowledge and data.
It should be obvious to you that nobody here cares what you have say about any of this. All because of the way in which you presented it. Congratulations. It's a shame that had to happen.
people dislike how I present information, that's fine. They do have an ignore button for a reason. This isn't YouTube and no money is to be made here from viewcounts. OP asked about both a rds mount, and a mount for a 1-4 or 6 variable. My answers are directly pertinent to his questions, and the follow up questions that others asked. Again, if people get so emotional about my responses that they forget what OP asked, please, use the ignore button. |
|
Quoted:
Sample size can't be argued. I agree. Do you now feel that Bobro is just as good because it has had less failures of which we are aware? people dislike how I present information, that's fine. They do have an ignore button for a reason. This isn't YouTube and no money is to be made here from viewcounts. OP asked about both a rds mount, and a mount for a 1-4 or 6 variable. My answers are directly pertinent to his questions, and the follow up questions that others asked. Again, if people get so emotional about my responses that they forget what OP asked, please, use the ignore button. Nothing emotional here. The Bobro is known to have an issue. That has been proven. Larue and ADM have stood the test of time and large group field use. Your "answer" to OP was a clearly "my opinion in favoring fixed mounts is superior and infallable and anyone who disagrees doesn't know jack" form of arrogance. People who do have some experience in the issue and have reached different opinions tend to oppose the arrogance by exposing flawed logic and small sample anectdotal "evidence". Those of us who have been using top tier QD mounts, some of us for decades, with NONE of the problem of which you speak have strongly challenged your view. We contend that when a large, active, well-informed group of users has put these products to our own collective experience and have so for years, we have a reliable methodology by which to identify products with problems and those that do not. When those problems surface, we share those experiences. If anything we over-report problems that are often user error. That's why I remain confident that the theoretical problems you describe are not actually impeding either accuracy of return to zero or dependability of these mounts. By your logic, giving a mount one million inch pounds of clamping force would make it even better than your fixed mount. This is a form of false logic. Once the desired result is obtained, "more" does not equate to "better. Higher clamping force numbers become a distinction without a difference. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Quick release? (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor