Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/23/2006 5:16:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2006 5:53:51 PM EDT by CIB]
Hey guys, I just bought a B&T mount for the HK MP5, HK 33/53/93, it’s the Universal mount. I also bought the Chinese made copy of it from www.airsplat.com, and I thought I’d do a comparison of them for the guys that might be interested in these mounts. All measurements were taken with a Lyman digital caliper, and all measurements were double checked. I was very surprised with the results I obtained.
First off both were well finished. The B&T mount was finished in a flat black, the Chinese version is a flat black as well, but a little shinier than the B&T. Both are made of aluminum. Just looking at them, they are exact twins, the holes for the screws, number of slots (12 each), and receiver detent slots are all in the same location.
Now for the measurements! Overall length B&T: 5.437”, Chinese: 5.433”, Overall width (this measurement was taken on the end of the mount with the small threaded hole in the top) B&T: 1.358”, Chinese 1.354”, Ejection Port Cutout, B&T: 2.200”, Chinese: 2.205”. Alright, granted these “outside” dimensions have little effect on mounting optics to the base, nor on fit of the mount to the rifle, but demonsrate thus far how closely the Chinese copy is of the Swiss made B&T mount. So, now on to the serious stuff of where the mounts lock up to the receiver, and where optics affix to the mount!
The following measurements pertain to the rails, the area where your optics would interface with the mount. Rail slot width (all slots were measured), B&T: .207”-.208, Chinese: .199”-.202”, leaving a spread of .009”-.005”. Rail width: (measurement taken at three points along the rail: each end, and mid-point), B&T: .823”- .824”, Chinese: .833 (same at all three points). I’m not sure of the significance of these measurements as both mounts securely hold an ARMS M68 QR mount, and cheap copy of the M68 QR mount.
Now let us flip both mounts over, and take measurements there, and see how they compare. The following measurements will affect how the mount attaches to the weapon. First the Inside Width: B&T: 1.005”, Chinese: 1.003”. Second the measurement between the two farthest spaced Receiver Detents: B&T: 1.813”, Chinese: 1.816”. And now between the two closest spaced Receiver Detents: B&T: .552”, Chinese: .552”. Maximum variation in how the mounts attach to the weapon is .003”!
Now here is where there tends to be quite a bit of difference, and that is in the hard ware that attaches the mount to the weapon, the hex head screws, and feet that the screws thread into, and pull up against the receiver to secure the interface between mount and weapon. First is the small rectangular “Foot” (for lack of a better term), and it must be noted here that the B&T foot is steel, whereas the Chinese one is aluminum, anyway here are the measurements: B&T: .552” X .235”, Chinese: .556” X .237”. Now for the hex head screws that attach the “feet”: B&T: .752” X .133” course thread, Chinese: .735” X .113” fine thread. I have no way to measure thread pitch for either.
To sum it up, both fit and work well on my Vector V93, and SW52X. Given the very small amount of variation in dimensions, and the amount of force it would take to tear one of them off of a weapon, I just can’t see why anyone would need to spend the extra $100 on the B&T. Speaking of that $100, how about price of the two units? Well the B&T came from DSA at the price of $124.95+ S&H, the Chinese copy from Airsplat (and other vendors as well) $24.60 shipped to my door!
Well, that’s my review hope you find it helpful! It might save you some money for ammo as well. By the way I have no vested interest, nor work for any of the companies mentioned in this review.
Best Regards
B&T on the left, Chicom on the right.




Link Posted: 3/23/2006 5:26:32 PM EDT
you sir - are a good man (with a fair bit of time on your hands...)

I figure that your advice is good - lets face it, most of us aren't clamoring throug the streets of Fallujah and can 'get away with' an ever-so-slightly-less-rugged part.

Especially if it saves us $100~.

Thanks!
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 5:51:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2006 5:51:58 PM EDT by CIB]
g258, true enough that the majority of us are'nt using our goodies for combat. However, the major weak link of these mounts is the way it attaches to the receiver. Having spent some time in Iraq myself, and some LE as well, I don't know that I'd trust either IMO (no way to use your irons if the mount, or your optic fails). They both lock up pretty solid though, and I don't think you'd be moving either one unless you use a hammer!
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 6:57:40 PM EDT
Thanks for the Info!!

Cheaper Than Dirt still has a few of these!!

They show a different one on the web site, but one of the Tech guys looked on the shelf for me today, they still have 20 or so of the B&T Copy!!

Y
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 12:43:26 AM EDT
I bought the Leapers from Airsplat and it fits 100% on my JLD. Why can't B&T charge a bit less if Leapers can. That is a massive difference in price!!!! I bet it cost B&T the same as Leapers to make this mount. Then B&T jacks up the price so they make a 5,000% profit!!!! That is really sad! They are ripping off who ever buys their mount big time!
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 12:57:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SkagSig40:
I bought the Leapers from Airsplat and it fits 100% on my JLD. Why can't B&T charge a bit less if Leapers can. That is a massive difference in price!!!! I bet it cost B&T the same as Leapers to make this mount. Then B&T jacks up the price so they make a 5,000% profit!!!! That is really sad! They are ripping off who ever buys their mount big time!






The B&T is made in Switzerland. The Leapers is made in China.

It probably really does cost 10 times as much to make the B&T.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 1:03:17 AM EDT
Excellent work CIB, thanks.


The B&T mount is what is is, don't want to pay their price... then don't.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 2:01:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2006 2:06:32 PM EDT by CIB]
I guess what it all really comes down to is this, you really can't tell a dimes bit of difference between the two, when they are mounted on a rifle. Glad you guys found it helpful/informative.

Osprey21 is correct, they are what they are. Either drop $125 on a B&T or don't, IMO there is a cheaper alternative that works just as well. Just depends on what you want/gotta have.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 5:14:45 PM EDT
Thanks again for the great review!

If my Leapers ever falls apart I'll fork over the $$$ for the B&T with a tear in my eye.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 6:26:01 PM EDT
For the average "purpose" (play) that most of us here use our guns here I am sure that a leapers is fine. But let's not pretend that the quality of the leapers is anywhere near that of the B&T. The dimensions may be close, and they might even be made primairly out of the same general material. But aluminum is a pretty big category, what alloy is the airsoft version, and is it cast or forged? What are the long term effects of the rifles recoil on the very likely poor quality cast aluminum of the leapers mount?

I personally think the prices of the BT mounts are absurd, and the ONLY reason that I bought one was that they are the only ones who offer a low profile "full length" rail, but they are not the "same thing as a leapers".

How many here would agree with the idea that a Hesse AR and a Colt AR were the same due to the fact that they shared dimensions and materials?
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 6:48:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rickyj:
How many here would agree with the idea that a Hesse AR and a Colt AR were the same due to the fact that they shared dimensions and materials?



AR's is a different story...

Are you aware that there's only a few companies making AR Receivers out there??

Sometimes several manufacturers use Exactly the SAME Receivers!!, they just engrave them with their logos!!

I agree that the Leapers mount is not the same as the B&T, but I'd be willing to bet that not many of us would shoot the firearm so much that the Mount would fail!!

IMHO, I don't thik my IGF MP5 Conversion would be rough enough to a Leapers Mount in order to make it fail!!

Just my $.02

I'm getting a couple (well, my wife is) for my birthday!!

Y
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 7:41:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rickyj:
For the average "purpose" (play) that most of us here use our guns here I am sure that a leapers is fine. But let's not pretend that the quality of the leapers is anywhere near that of the B&T. The dimensions may be close, and they might even be made primairly out of the same general material. But aluminum is a pretty big category, what alloy is the airsoft version, and is it cast or forged? What are the long term effects of the rifles recoil on the very likely poor quality cast aluminum of the leapers mount?

I personally think the prices of the BT mounts are absurd, and the ONLY reason that I bought one was that they are the only ones who offer a low profile "full length" rail, but they are not the "same thing as a leapers".

How many here would agree with the idea that a Hesse AR and a Colt AR were the same due to the fact that they shared dimensions and materials?



If your rifle recoils hard enough to deform any type of aluminum that is clamped to it, I would'nt want to have to haul it into combat. The AR analogy does'nt really fit, there are moving parts in an AR, and some of the parts are exposed to extremely high pressures. Not true of an optics mount. I have both, I'll let you know which one fails first.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 8:38:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CIB:

Originally Posted By Rickyj:
For the average "purpose" (play) that most of us here use our guns here I am sure that a leapers is fine. But let's not pretend that the quality of the leapers is anywhere near that of the B&T. The dimensions may be close, and they might even be made primairly out of the same general material. But aluminum is a pretty big category, what alloy is the airsoft version, and is it cast or forged? What are the long term effects of the rifles recoil on the very likely poor quality cast aluminum of the leapers mount?

I personally think the prices of the BT mounts are absurd, and the ONLY reason that I bought one was that they are the only ones who offer a low profile "full length" rail, but they are not the "same thing as a leapers".

How many here would agree with the idea that a Hesse AR and a Colt AR were the same due to the fact that they shared dimensions and materials?



If your rifle recoils hard enough to deform any type of aluminum that is clamped to it, I would'nt want to have to haul it into combat. The AR analogy does'nt really fit, there are moving parts in an AR, and some of the parts are exposed to extremely high pressures. Not true of an optics mount. I have both, I'll let you know which one fails first.



Well the analogy does work because if the moving parts are all the same size and made out of the same general material whats the difference? The difference is IN the materials, and the finer attention to detail - that makes and breaks everything.

My guess is that neither mount will fail with your use. And the rifle is not going to "deform" the rail. Over a longer time period the cheap cast aluminum may very well develop fractures and break.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 5:29:51 AM EDT
I also have some cheap cast aluminum Tasco scope mounts, that I'm sure were made in China, that have seen use on .270's and 30-06's over the past 20 years. None of those have failed either, though I have knocked the finish off of them.
Now go forth and spend your money on something, I'm done with this.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 8:30:11 AM EDT
Thanks CIB!

It was great to read your review and commentary on these mounts

BIGGER_HAMMER
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 10:50:48 AM EDT
Thanks for doing the leg work. Always wanted to know, since picking two up last week.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 11:24:24 AM EDT
I've purchased a few mounts made by leapers for several different
rifles over the years.

Mostly for AKs,SKSs,and Mosins.

They ranged from cheap and cheesy ,to downright useless.
All wound up being junked eventually.

Based on recommendations from people on this and several other
message boards ,I decided to give the Leapers HK Universal
Low Mount a try anyway .
Why not for $26 shipped to my door ?

I got it in last night.

It's on my custom PTR-91 ,with an Eotech 552 on top .

Yup ,a $450 optic ,and I used a $20 mount.
(I'm low on funds,and I needed ammo too)

This mount is superb .As a Leapers product ,it surprised me
how well made it is.
I tugged on the mount ,and put pressure on it in a soft jawwed vice.

I also beat on it a little with a rubber mallet to "hear" the aluminum to
see if it sounded cheap with faults ,or solid.It's VERY solid.
The only possible weak spot would be the aluminum feet.
Tightening to hard would strip these.Blue Loc-tite is the answer ,not
overtightening .

A quick trip to the hardwhare store taught me the screws were Metric #3 s .
There were square ends there meant to be used as nuts,that if filed a bit would
be a steel replacement if you stripped the aluminum feet .
I think the original feet are strong enough ,but if one were to strip them,
you could replace all 4 feet for under $2 at a hardware store.


Buy this mount and save your $$$$ !
Link Posted: 3/26/2006 4:44:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/26/2006 4:58:12 AM EDT by BB]
This mount is made in the PRK, correct?
It costs at least five times more to manufacture the B&T then the Leapers because the communists have a cheap labor pool and European socialism has run amok.
I guess in the end the choice is what society you wish to support; communism or socialism
Top Top