Switching to Nightforce ATACR 7-35 on my 6.5 bolt and interested in experience/thoughts on one over the other and why? Will have either bubble or send it and both have their own mount for each so curious pros/cons to each…appreciate any input !
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Mounts - Gray Ops vs Area 419
- Thread starter avn2011
- Start date
Bubble is in a better position on the Gray Ops vs Area 419. Both have Send It brackets, but the Area 419 has more mounting points. Both are 7075 aluminum and about the same weight, but I think Area 419 is a little heavier (though I don’t have both naked to compare). Both use one drive size for all hardware. Area 419 uses recessed mounting bosses for accessories and a nifty taper fit for the main diving board whilst Gray Ops uses a serrated interface like ARC M-Brace for all mounting points. Gray Ops has steel threadserts for the cross bolts. Personally I think the Gray Ops looks better.
Assuming the steel threadserts are more secure/stable over the long haul? I like the nuanced mounting/location for the basic bubble on the gray ops more
I can’t say that I disagree with @DeathBeforeDismount on this one. I have own both and as far as quality they are on par with the 419 being slightly cheaper after you accessorize. I’d say this tho, I have had the 419 in two different scopes (two different mounts) and they both were left with noticeable ring marks once removed. Not sure if it has to do with the raw aluminum finish inside the rings. Torque was not an issue.
No marring with the gray ops though? I had ARC m brace rings on my leupold and you couldn’t even tell when I took them off. Been leaning towards gray ops but have no experience with them other than word of mouth
If some of the raw aluminum has transferred to the optic (which is common) a little iso alcohol or acetone on a cloth removes it easily.
Also, thank you for the kind words @DeathBeforeDismount - anonymous person that I'm unsure I've ever met. You're right though, Dave is absolutely a better shooter than me, and he's a beautiful man.
Yes there was some of that aluminum transfer and used alcohol to remove. But also clear marks around the edges of the rings and where the top and bottom rings meet . These were a S&B and a ZCO torqued at 15”lbs.
Not trying to knock on your product as we all know that Area 419 makes quality stuff and I own and will continue to own a bunch of it. But that has been my experience with the one piece mounts.
Not trying to knock on your product as we all know that Area 419 makes quality stuff and I own and will continue to own a bunch of it. But that has been my experience with the one piece mounts.
I've wondered about your bare aluminum mounts. What prevents this from oxidizing and being abrasive/harder than anodizing would have been, anyway? Raw aluminum in air will form a very thin layer of aluminum oxide almost instantly.
Ah, that’s DICKbeforedismount and he apparently can’t help himself. I think his syndrome his in the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual.
Personally, I’ve been very pleased with everything I’ve bought from 419 and the order and delivery process was smooth and timely.
In fairness, I also think Gray Ops also makes very fine products and IMO there there is no need to try to set one against the other. Both are fine vendors to the shooting community.
What’s the advantage to single piece mount versus rings ? Never had any issues with the ARC m braces but wholesale switch now to a different diameter tube on the atacr so starting over
This is my favorite thing about snipers hide right here. No one can have a varying opinion or give their point of view without someone making it about “set one against the other” or fanboys defending their brand as if they hold stock in these companies.Ah, that’s DICKbeforedismount and he apparently can’t help himself. I think his syndrome his in the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual.
Personally, I’ve been very pleased with everything I’ve bought from 419 and the order and delivery process was smooth and timely.
In fairness, I also think Gray Ops also makes very fine products and IMO there there is no need to try to set one against the other. Both are fine vendors to the shooting community.
The OP asked for opinions and opinions were given. Ultimately he is the one that will be affected by his purchase. Area 419 is top tier shit, always has and likely always will be and I will continue to purchase and recommend their products but in these case their mounts scratched my shit
What’s the advantage to single piece mount versus rings ? Never had any issues with the ARC m braces but wholesale switch now to a different diameter tube on the atacr so starting over
1) It removes action flex from the scope on some platforms.
2) The mount is more "true" than all but custom actions with integral base.
3) AR's and AR based platforms are massively popular, so making a unimount type is going to be the easy path to profits in a saturated industry, so from a production vs. return standpoint, it's a solid move.
In general, it comes down to rigidity and straightness (regardless of brand).
If you're attaching to a platform that may not be perfectly true (factory rifles with aftermarket/screw-on pic rails) or super rigid (aluminum AR uppers) then you may be better off with the one-piece setup.
If you're attaching to a custom action with an integral steel rail, the benefit is likely to be much less, as long as you mount in a way that accounts for pic's inherent susceptibility to off-axis mounting.
Nothing prevents this, it definitely happens in a tiny fraction of a second, though in a LONG process of both in-house and independent testing we have found the only downside is possible discoloration of the inner surface from long-term or extreme exposure conditions. Once the oxide layer forms it functions as a protectant on its own. There is no significant mechanical change in a mount that's been off the machine for a few seconds or one that has been in a saline mist for days on end. It remains smoother and functionally softer than an anodized part.
Raw 7075 comes in about 54 Rockwell, and Type 2 Anodizing increases that outer shell (Ano is typically .001-.002" thick) to ~70. While the oxidation layer that quickly forms on aluminum is quite hard as well it is VERY thin, like a few nanometers, and does not functionally act as a shell.
*Ducks as people find something to be angry about*
By mounting in a way that accounts for that, do you mean just pushing the ring forward against the pic slot before tightening or something else?
Here, check this out. I talk about what I mean in the video.
Basically you want the rings as true to the optics as possible before mounting (via wet mount) to the pic rail so the rings don't settle out of square on pic. Pic is great because things can attach so easily, but pic is not tightly toleranced so there is a lot of opportunity for something to settle onto it a touch crooked. If your rings are a little off angle and you crank an optic into them, it's obviously less than ideal.
And the single piece takes more of that potential variability out versus 2 independently attached mounts?
At the rail? No. Though it makes it mostly irrelevant as the mounting surface for the optic is aligned by the bridge between ring sections. So the whole mount can be off, but the mounting surfaces for the optic will remain true to one another and keep stress out of the connection.
The single piece can keep certain kinds of mounting stress off the optic tube.
As mentioned above, the NATO pic spec has lots of tolerance. If you translate that tolerance into out-of-square forces into your optic, its not ideal. In general, it seems you want to eliminate transferance of any tolerance variarion into the optical tube.
Another way to do that is buy higher-than-min-spec precision rails or actions with tighter than NATO spec integrated railes. That way when you use rings, you don't translate the slop of the rail/tolerance stacking into torque forces into the optic.
This also eliminates a potential source of zero shift, since if you start dropping things, if there more chance to move, theres more likelihood of actual movement.
Dowside to single piece mounts is that they are so stiff, you can end up tranlating recoil stress into the optic.
Where a rings setup lets the optic flex more along the length. If you have a super stiff block in the middle, that can concentrate flexing forces, since only the ends can move. I think you need to see some high speed film footage to believe this/ for this to make sense.
Terry Cross has some comments about preference for rings vs single piece on bolt guns. I'd leave it to him to explain it, but it may have something to do with this or something along these lines. Alot of this stuff isn't obvious and doesn't get talked about much.
I also think in part, its the actual SKUs that start to matter here vs talking in generalities.
As mentioned above, the NATO pic spec has lots of tolerance. If you translate that tolerance into out-of-square forces into your optic, its not ideal. In general, it seems you want to eliminate transferance of any tolerance variarion into the optical tube.
Another way to do that is buy higher-than-min-spec precision rails or actions with tighter than NATO spec integrated railes. That way when you use rings, you don't translate the slop of the rail/tolerance stacking into torque forces into the optic.
This also eliminates a potential source of zero shift, since if you start dropping things, if there more chance to move, theres more likelihood of actual movement.
Dowside to single piece mounts is that they are so stiff, you can end up tranlating recoil stress into the optic.
Where a rings setup lets the optic flex more along the length. If you have a super stiff block in the middle, that can concentrate flexing forces, since only the ends can move. I think you need to see some high speed film footage to believe this/ for this to make sense.
Terry Cross has some comments about preference for rings vs single piece on bolt guns. I'd leave it to him to explain it, but it may have something to do with this or something along these lines. Alot of this stuff isn't obvious and doesn't get talked about much.
I also think in part, its the actual SKUs that start to matter here vs talking in generalities.
