They did it on purpose. The bigger issue is the lack of access to the bottom screws.
Rifle Scopes SPRM² - Scope Mount Installation Tutorial
- Thread starter GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
- Start date
GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
Official Sniper's Hide account of Griffin Armament
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
I'm still not grasping what you guy's gripe is here... I can reach the fasteners just fine with the optic mounted. That being said, if you install your optic following our procedure, and torque the 8-40 fasteners to the recommended spec... you won't have any issues.
Now do that without the extended bit. Let us know how easy it is to get a straight grasp on the screw.
GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
Official Sniper's Hide account of Griffin Armament
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
The extended bit that anyone can buy at literally any hardware store in the US? Come on man...
These complaints seem to be largely born out of laziness as one commenter in this thread admitted earlier. If you don't like the product because of this one feature, then move on. We demonstrate how simple installation is, cover any considerations, and make recommendations for tools and procedures... All this to support a product that can be had for a ridiculously competitive price. I'm not going to win you all over, and some of ya'll seem to just want to be mad and I can't help that. ?
-Sam
They do seem like a very solid option for a great price. No complaints about that. Was just honestly curious as to why screw placement is where it is, that’s all.The extended bit that anyone can buy at literally any hardware store in the US? Come on man...
These complaints seem to be largely born out of laziness as one commenter in this thread admitted earlier. If you don't like the product because of this one feature, then move on. We demonstrate how simple installation is, cover any considerations, and make recommendations for tools and procedures... All this to support a product that can be had for a ridiculously competitive price. I'm not going to win you all over, and some of ya'll seem to just want to be mad and I can't help that. ?
-Sam
For me personally it is just a matter of simplicity, it requires a tool that I do not have or an etra step I do not need with other products for no apparent reason. (Or am I missing something) Nothing personal, just an observation.
People have asked what positives there are for having the screws on the underside, and apologies if i missed it, but I havent seen that question addressed. An extended bit is just another piece of kit that can be misplaced in the field, so w/o significant advantages, why?The extended bit that anyone can buy at literally any hardware store in the US? Come on man...
These complaints seem to be largely born out of laziness as one commenter in this thread admitted earlier. If you don't like the product because of this one feature, then move on. We demonstrate how simple installation is, cover any considerations, and make recommendations for tools and procedures... All this to support a product that can be had for a ridiculously competitive price. I'm not going to win you all over, and some of ya'll seem to just want to be mad and I can't help that. ?
-Sam
GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
Official Sniper's Hide account of Griffin Armament
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Why? I figured that was obvious, so my apologies. This design facilitates accessory mounting on all 5 sides of the mount (10 surfaces total, 5 on each ring).
This mount, once installed, should not require servicing in the field... but if it does, keep an extra extended bit in whatever tool kit you already have put together I guess? How many folks on here are mounting optics on the firing line versus at their workbench? Your concerns aren't really valid and you're hammering away at a usability feature that Is not an impediment to the function of the product.
SO WHATS YOUR REAL BEEF??
My guess would be that it's a simple way to avoid patent infringement suits from SPUHR.
i think the real question is...
if the screws can be on the top of the mount on the 'high side' and still have a usable mounting surface on that 45 degree angle, what makes the 'low side' different.
is it just to have the same length screws on both sides?
high side
low side
if the screws can be on the top of the mount on the 'high side' and still have a usable mounting surface on that 45 degree angle, what makes the 'low side' different.
is it just to have the same length screws on both sides?
high side
low side
Why are you being hostile to me when there are at least 4 other posters asking the same questions in this or other threads? I havent been accusatory, defamatory, nor any negative comments at all. I, for one, do relatively frequently change scopes around in the field, so extra pieces that could get lost and harder access away from the bench do matter to me.
GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
Official Sniper's Hide account of Griffin Armament
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Screw length is the same. All mounting surfaces are completely usable. Buy a mount and try it out for yourself!
A lot of folks seem to be picking this apart from pictures and forum conjecture. This product wasn't just thrown together. It was designed, tested, and manufactured by people who have devoted their lives to this industry.
Might i suggest *gasp* trying it, following our instructions, and then make your informed criticism if any.
A lot of folks seem to be picking this apart from pictures and forum conjecture. This product wasn't just thrown together. It was designed, tested, and manufactured by people who have devoted their lives to this industry.
Might i suggest *gasp* trying it, following our instructions, and then make your informed criticism if any.
You didn’t explain how having all the screws on top prevents 5 mounting surfaces per ring. Can you explain that?We’re assuming that’s the reason they are on the bottom.
I get why they had to with their chosen design parameters. Its so that they can bisect the scope tube in half so the scope can actually fit into the ring.
or for the angled split in half
If one part was any more or less than half then the scope wouldnt be able to enter the rings.
But splitting it in half in the horizontal middle puts it right in the middle of their side mounting holes. So they have to offset it if they want to keep their accessory mounting holes. (who really ever uses these holes though? Ive never seen anyone in real life use them.)
Sphur got around this by bisecting the ring at an angle and leaving meat on the corners so that the screws had enough material to bite into without possibly tearing out the aluminum. But it also allows them to tighten the cap screws without removing the entire mount or carry around extended bits... and adding an extended bit isnt the worst concession to make... provided that the entire rest off the wrench can fit which which a borka cant like you said.
One might also be able to leave a larger gap between the base and the caps to make up for the necessary material clearances for the scope tube to drop in... but then that could get into pinching or way over torquing should someone not be familiar with needing to leave the larger gap and it sacrifices surface area which I can see some arguing against.
I think a better method would have been to make the lower side a hinge sort of like ARC kind of does with theirs (and displayed amazingly in this old image of their previous experiment).
If you dont make that hinge and fastener tangential though you can start to squeeze the mount in a non uniform manner which leads to pinching the tube which is why people dont like the vertical split rings which requiring closing one side completely and then torquing the opposite to clamp it down and hope that its pinching it uniformly instead of only on the gap side.
So I can see why griffin was forced to make the screws on the bottom. But its their general assholeishness thats seeping through (we're assholes too but we arent trying to sell anything so it doesnt matter for us) and refusal to acknowledge the issue is an issue for most people that I think most people are really jumping on them over.
"It was designed, tested, and manufactured by people who have devoted their lives to this industry." Yeah and then they named it after cum so I'll take the blind devotion with a grain of salt.
Personally, I would have put them up top while keeping the split down low and just left more meat on the bottom half with 1/4" longer screws for the threads to bite on.
But then it wouldnt be "ambidextrous" for whatever the fuck benefit that could be.
Last edited:
the griffin doesnt split in the middle
they have an angled split. look at the two images i posted. the mounting screw side is the 'low side' and also the side that has the upside down screws
the 'high side' has the up/normal screws and ALSO has the mounting option even with those screws there
mirror those screws to the other side and make them 1/2" longer and you can have up facing screws?? and you'd still keep the mounting options on all side of the mount/ring
Its not in the middle but its still bisecting the inner circle into halves.
I agree though, I was editing my post to say as much after I had hit the initial submit. Just make the screws longer for one side and throw the ambidextrous thing out the window because once they finally introduce canted mounts in a non cantilever mount, which is probably what people would really want instead of the current offerings, the ambidextrous thing is thrown away anyways.
How much is the mount? $
Weight?
Cost and availability of a top rail to mount a radius?
0moa 1.375” height available ?
^available in extended style for AR?
Weight?
Cost and availability of a top rail to mount a radius?
0moa 1.375” height available ?
^available in extended style for AR?
Last edited:
Its mostly on their site aside from weights https://www.griffinarmament.com/optics-mounts/
210 bucks which isnt bad, Im guessing the radius would use the picatinny adaptor however there is no pic or description for howlong it is, hopefully its long enough for the radius but all their adaptors are 70 bucks.
?
additionally, I mounted a scope in the field this past weekend. All I used was my fix it sticks kit which has all the small bits and torque limiters. It was last minute for a friend who brought some new gear out and if he had the splooge mount we wouldn’t have been able to do it without taking the whole thing off a few times that would have been a Major pain in the ass.
serious question, how many people need 10 mounts on the rings? What would you even hang off every point? Do you offer mounting points for each location other than pic rails?
Now seems like a great time to do a quick redesign and avoid all this by flipping those screws to the top.
while you’re at it, change the name to GPSM ( Griffin precision scope mount) and keep it the same price, you’ll sell the ever loving fuck out of them.
Griffen should find someone to run their forum presence that's a little less douchey.
So far I wouldn't buy a mount, suppressor, or anything really from Griffen because you seem like a douche bag.
Went over to AR15.com just to see. they are more childish but it's all the same jokes. Not worth the read really. But it does say something about bad marketing and the fact that it's not just sniperhide says a lot too..
Surprised by the amount of criticism about the necessity of an extended bit. For as many people that have had to buy and use one to torque down a KRG Bravo front action screw they sure don't catch much flack (nor should they IMO).
This. seems like the concenus of this impromptu market research panel is we'd rather sacrifice a mounting location for easier access to the cap screws
For me that was also annoying and it would definitely better if they would have found a way to make it work without the extra bit, that is what engineers are for after all. We drive cars because we are to lazy to walk.
And all of these are design choices and they should be backed up by something comprehensible. Be it patent workarounds or manufacturing necessities.
Agree. The market segment that wants the mounting location options seems really small compared to those who would buy if the screw head placement was more normal. Seems like a solution looking for a problem. I would be all over one if the screws all faced up. I don’t need all the mounting options. I’d buy another Spuhr to avoid the odd screw issue. I don’t think $200 vs $400 is a deciding factor for most of us that have $5000+ rifles and $2500+ scopes. Just my opinion.
That’s right. I will never replace a Spuhr. I would buy another Spuhr just because the screw heads all face up. I don’t care if it’s $200 more. If the spurm mount had all screw heads facing up, like every other mount on the market, I might consider buying one for my next build. But since it doesn’t, it’s off the list. I don’t care how trivial they think it is. It’s my money and I’ll decide where to spend it. I have a feeling most of the people posting in this thread have a similar opinion.
Last edited:
Seems like it's the same people discussing the same thing over and over. The SPRM has been on your lips for a week now.
Meh. Ima stick with NF. I don’t see what a Spuhr or a sperm does over them besides be heavier complicated and expensive.
GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT
Official Sniper's Hide account of Griffin Armament
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
It's many of the same people with the same negativity. We're selling plenty of mounts to people who see what they accomplish- 5 accessory mounting surfaces on each ring, and ambidextrous functionality.
When I was probably 8 years old, I got a AA powered remote control car for Christmas- it was a cheap toy. Elon Musk for a while powered a passenger car with ~7100 AA sized rechargeable batteries configured into a giant pack. It's different just like his concept that rockets shouldn't be single use. If you make a scope mount the same as every other mount, it will just be the same as every other mount.
I’m not really following the comparison. Are you saying that by developing this mount you’re the Elon Musk of scope mounts?
if you have a do-all rifle, it is helpful to have mounting locations for MRDS for close shots, but yes at the cost of weight.
And.......if you use the longer bit with a Wheeler Fatwrench, will you run out of space between the benchtop and the screwheads ?(it’s dependent on the rest height).
With a Spuhr, or other “toploaders”, it is possible to load up each cap with all 6 screws in advance of placing the cap on the base. Can’t do that with the Griffin, each screw has to be inserted one at a time.
Simply flip the screw orientation and I’d probably buy one. Spuhr doesn’t use “special” aluminum......
Last edited:
It was done on purpose...
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general...-original-product/5-2268056/&page=6#i81761978
another solution. I dont have a use for any of them, so I dont know. (hence I sold my Spuhr for ARC rings)
ARC M10 rings and QD mounts are the best out there if you don't need to attach anything to them.
If you turn your rifle upside down the screws are on top.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
And, if you stand on your head, same issues all over again. ‘Cept, now that I think about it, you could fully load the caps (actually, the bases) without the screws falling out......
You may be on to something....... ?
It's a nice $200 alternative to the trendy $500 chunk of aluminum that holds your scope and accessories.
I would buy one if it did something that I needed and that my other scope mounts dont do for me.
@GRIFFIN_ARMAMENT How About a tool-less scope mount? Or adjustable cant? Or something truly innovative. Aside from needing thick skin to internet. If you unveil a new product and it isn't ground breaking prepare to get roasted and nit picked.
Two things:
The guy representing the mount needs to be in sales mode. I.e. way nicer.
If I read the posts correctly the Borka kit won’t work. That is the best kit ever. You need to work with that.
Either one is a deal breaker
The guy representing the mount needs to be in sales mode. I.e. way nicer.
If I read the posts correctly the Borka kit won’t work. That is the best kit ever. You need to work with that.
Either one is a deal breaker
Similar threads
