Proportionate scope rings

I don't qualify a mount based on weight or appearance but can it accomplish the task, does it have a good track record, and is it available in the height I'm looking for? My short list for rings/mounts is Nightforce, Badger Ordnance, Seekins Precision, Vortex, and Warne. There's some overlap because Seekins makes stuff for Vortex and Warne makes stuff for Vortex and Brownells but that's about what it boils down to. I don't care about QD mounts so I don't really go for LaRue, ADM, or Midwest Industries mounts. The AeroPrecision mounts are about the bare minimum you can have on a mount and still have it grip the scope, I have one but only used it for some photos and never really shoot it out, I wouldn't trust one.

snowplow said:

Hey guys, I think I'm going to buy a GPO 3-18 or something very close for a spr type upper. I'm just kind of curious how you guys go about choosing scope rings. Not scope, height and all that stuff, but how heavy and beefy to buy. 98% of all the rings I've had have been tally ultralights so not exactly the most robust design. However, I've also never had a problem with scope rings. Some of these things get pretty darn heavy.

I was going to buy an Aero ultralight, but then I decided maybe I should ask to see if I should buy something more robust? How do you guys choose what is enough?

Click to expand...

Warning, this is going to get a bit techy...

There are multiple camps and all have different thoughts and ideas, I'm going to focus on two camps here:
Camp 1: Doesn't matter what ring/mount you use, just properly torque and you should be good to go...
Camp 2: You ever had zero shift? Have you blamed it on your scope? Sent the scope back to the manufacturer and they either say they fixed it or tell you it's within spec? Maybe it's time to stope blaming your scope and start looking at your rings/mount. I get it, when it comes to field gear that we have to haul around for hours at a time we typically look for "lighter"; however, there can be some tradeoff to those "lighter" mounts as you mention above and I know a few who treat their gear harshly who've mentioned going to "beefier" mounts has helped solve the zero shift problem. There's even a thread about greasing your rails to improve zero shift and for the most part my thought is... can't hurt.

I have not spent a lot of time testing different mounts and their ability to hold the scope properly in harsh conditions, mostly because there are so many variables at play that I do not think it is fair to the scope or the ring/mount manufacturers (or for that matter to the mfr of the picatinny rail). But what I just mentioned are a minimum of 3 points of failure - picatinny, mount, scope, but then there are other points of failure: what about ring screws and torque (proper torque), what about mount/ring location on the scope, what about base screw torque (proper torque). This is why I have an issue with the tomfoolery over at RokSlide with all their drop tests, I think there are too many variables going on to make decisive apples to apples comparisons which I think can be unfair to various scopes, makes for an interesting conversation for sure, but I don't put much weight into their results and neither should you.

What trigger monkey mentions above regarding "a good track record" is probably the best route to go. If you want to take a chance on another brand or a brand new release nothing wrong with that, but be aware of some of the risks involved.

I really like the Leupold Mark AR mount. It’s a solid, made in the USA mount for around $70. They also have an optional ring cap if you want to add a red dot.

After I had a cheap rail come loose mid match (sheared screw) , I won’t use any base without a recoil lug or pin.

Rings or one piece mounts I go for something with machined in recoil lugs for the same reason .

With that in mind , I have found the Nightforce Ultramount to be a great balance of robustness and weight savings where possible.

You’re going to need a cantilever mount for an AR.

snowplow said:

Hey guys, I think I'm going to buy a GPO 3-18 or something very close for a spr type upper. I'm just kind of curious how you guys go about choosing scope rings. Not scope, height and all that stuff, but how heavy and beefy to buy. 98% of all the rings I've had have been tally ultralights so not exactly the most robust design. However, I've also never had a problem with scope rings. Some of these things get pretty darn heavy.

I was going to buy an Aero ultralight, but then I decided maybe I should ask to see if I should buy something more robust? How do you guys choose what is enough?

Click to expand...

I buy stuff that the military has tested and found satisfactory for the type (size/weight) optic I am using it for. Nightforce, Reptilia, Geissele, etc. I then go based off of preferences (height, weight, attachment method, etc) and pick from that pile. You can debate the merit of each mount within the pile, but they are all going to be just fine.

Glassaholic said:

Warning, this is going to get a bit techy...

There are multiple camps and all have different thoughts and ideas, I'm going to focus on two camps here:
Camp 1: Doesn't matter what ring/mount you use, just properly torque and you should be good to go...
Camp 2: You ever had zero shift? Have you blamed it on your scope? Sent the scope back to the manufacturer and they either say they fixed it or tell you it's within spec? Maybe it's time to stope blaming your scope and start looking at your rings/mount. I get it, when it comes to field gear that we have to haul around for hours at a time we typically look for "lighter"; however, there can be some tradeoff to those "lighter" mounts as you mention above and I know a few who treat their gear harshly who've mentioned going to "beefier" mounts has helped solve the zero shift problem. There's even a thread about greasing your rails to improve zero shift and for the most part my thought is... can't hurt.

I have not spent a lot of time testing different mounts and their ability to hold the scope properly in harsh conditions, mostly because there are so many variables at play that I do not think it is fair to the scope or the ring/mount manufacturers (or for that matter to the mfr of the picatinny rail). But what I just mentioned are a minimum of 3 points of failure - picatinny, mount, scope, but then there are other points of failure: what about ring screws and torque (proper torque), what about mount/ring location on the scope, what about base screw torque (proper torque). This is why I have an issue with the tomfoolery over at RokSlide with all their drop tests, I think there are too many variables going on to make decisive apples to apples comparisons which I think can be unfair to various scopes, makes for an interesting conversation for sure, but I don't put much weight into their results and neither should you.

What trigger monkey mentions above regarding "a good track record" is probably the best route to go. If you want to take a chance on another brand or a brand new release nothing wrong with that, but be aware of some of the risks involved.

Click to expand...

When trends emerge, it's hard not to take note, however.

Trigger Monkey said:

You’re going to need a cantilever mount for an AR.

Click to expand...

Fairly strong opinion. Why do you say that

roostercogburn98 said:

Fairly strong opinion. Why do you say that

Click to expand...

Experience mostly. There are some exceptions but generally non-cantilevered mounts and individual rings put the optic too far back on a small frame AR. That’s not ideal and it’s why cantilevered mounts exist.

Trigger Monkey said:

Experience mostly. There are some exceptions but generally non-cantilevered mounts and individual rings put the optic too far back on a small frame AR. That’s not ideal and it’s why cantilevered mounts exist.

Click to expand...

So a possibility, but not a guarantee.

Cantilever is not needed for All scopes .

In the context of gas guns, short of a large frame AR, a scout mount, Swan sleeve, or monolithic upper, a cantilevered mount is highly recommended.

snowplow said:

What is a swan sleeve?

Click to expand...

A one piece riser rail that allows you to mount something forward of the upper and handguard gap and still have a solid mounting position

The swan sleeve goes over the PRI free float tube on the Mk12 Mod 0 and clones. Outside of those it's not really used.

JWG said:

When trends emerge, it's hard not to take note, however.

Click to expand...

I see, you mean trends based on a testing methodology that doesn't take into account multiple variables and prone to inaccurate data. And trends brought about by individuals with a history of pretty harsh bias towards certain manufacturers and a love affair with others. I'm not saying the RokSlip folks are deliberately disingenuous, but they keep pumping out their drop tests, and whether intended or not, the community over there by and large, is interpreting those results as if they are infallible and irrefutable.

Right now, I have nightforce, american rifle company, aero and Leupold Mark AR mounts.

Ive already broken an aero mount due to a mishap, but the mount is what it is. It just isnt super robust. Ive never had a problem with it holding zero though. I dont think I'll be buying any more.

Honestly, considering what mounts cost these days, the Mark AR mount is a great bang for the buck. It's robust, not overly heavy at about 6 oz and for under $200 you can get the mount, piggyback ring and adapter for your choice of red dot. Due to its 5 screw rail mount and LONG mounting surface, the return to zero has been excellent.

Really, for what my ARC and Nightforce rigs cost, I could have a dozen Leupolds and I often consider that.

If you have a short scope with a relatively short eye relief you may not need a cantilever mount. I suppose that if you run a full length stock and a scope with an eye relief of 4" or less, you may not need a cantilever; but a cantilever is in order in most cases.

I have maybe a dozen various scopes laying around and the only one that didn't need a cantilever is the 1-8x NX8.

Glassaholic said:

I see, you mean trends based on a testing methodology that doesn't take into account multiple variables and prone to inaccurate data. And trends brought about by individuals with a history of pretty harsh bias towards certain manufacturers and a love affair with others. I'm not saying the RokSlip folks are deliberately disingenuous, but they keep pumping out their drop tests, and whether intended or not, the community over there by and large, is interpreting those results as if they are infallible and irrefutable.

Click to expand...

Certainly the tests are backyard, but they seem to mirror reality well enough.

snowplow said:

Awesome guys. Do you guys know if a typical 50 mm objective will fit on a standard AR scope mount?

Click to expand...

I don't see why it wouldn't.

snowplow said:

Awesome guys. Do you guys know if a typical 50 mm objective will fit on a standard AR scope mount?

Click to expand...

Worked for me, but I’m sure I’m wrong