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 !
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 moreBubble 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.
They’re TIGHT. Whomever gets my Thetas after me is going to have to deal with ring marks for sure.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 mouthI 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.
I didn’t notice anyNo 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
Thats a Leupold issue in generalNo 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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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 overIf 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.
1) It removes action flex from the scope on some platforms.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
In general, it comes down to rigidity and straightness (regardless of brand).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
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.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.
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?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.
Here, check this out. I talk about what I mean in the video.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.
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.And the single piece takes more of that potential variability out versus 2 independently attached mounts?
I like it. Make something light and functional like the Reptilia or Badher C1 stuff for AR and I'd be interested. Not that I think you need to, just clarifying where my interest is.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*
They already have a cantilever style mount.I like it. Make something light and functional like the Reptilia or Badher C1 stuff for AR and I'd be interested. Not that I think you need to, just clarifying where my interest is.