Rifle Scopes Spuhr vs, ARC

[Btrain]

I see a lot of Spuhr pics but have never used them... Always used ring’s - ARC for the last few years. Is their real benefit that I don’t understand to the solid spurh mounts? Curious if I’m missing something

b

 

[candyx]

Alignment tolerances between a single mount as appose to a two piece mount .

 

[wade2big]

No

 

[phlegethon]

If you just want to mount the scope and that’s it, there is probably no advantage. ARC rings are really nice. The Spuhr mount is more convenient if you are swapping between multiple rifles, offers built in cant from zero to ~45 MOA, and allows you to mount other stuff onto the mount itself at multiple angles. All that may or may not matter depending on your application.

 

[SPAK]

The only reason I use Spuhr is for accessory attachments for night vision. Otherwise everything else I use ARC rings. Both are well made. I prefer the 4 screws of the Arc rings vs 16 screws on the spuhr.

But for night vision use with the simrad, spuhr all the way.

 

[candyx]

Seems popular among the competitive shooters as well

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2018/12/25/best-scope-mount/

 

[lte82]

Advantage of Spuhrs:

-Built in scope leveling system
-Integral bubble level
-Wont leave ring marks
-Can unmount and remount without losing zero
-No chance of ring misalignment
-Can mount the hawk hill data card and other accessories to it
-6 screws per cap vs 4 screws like most means less chance of something coming loose or sliding around

 

[Tyler Kemp]

I am unsure how you're supposed to see the bubble level where it's located. A neat feature...but not adjustable and nearly invisible with an optic installed. Maybe I need to make a bolt on Spuhr level.

 

[phlegethon]

Yes, the MK Machining bubble levels are a must. If you believe in bubble levels. I seem to need one.

 

[Btrain]

Appreciate the responses

 

[SPAK]

Spuhr levels are hard to see.

I’ve never had an issue with return to zero with arc rings nor slipping.

ive tried using the leveler built into the spuhr mount and I have an easier time with feeler gauges.

I don’t like having six screws per ring cap. I also don’t like having 4 screws per ring cap lol.

As you can see...... lots of personal preference, to each their own. I don't think you're missing anything with either mounts unless you need the capability to mount accessories.

 

[chrome]

Also a spuhr fan here for the reasons mentioned above. But I also have struggled with the leveling wedge personally. Not a lot of good videos showing the intricacies of using it. But I was probably over thinking it.

 

[newguy2k3v2]

I am unsure how you're supposed to see the bubble level where it's located. A neat feature...but not adjustable and nearly invisible with an optic installed. Maybe I need to make a bolt on Spuhr level.

For me personally I can see the level with my weak side eye. Putting the edge of the bubble on the line is perfectly centered if I were looking at it square. I could see it below the occular with a Bushnell lrhs.

 

[whatsupdoc]

Alignment tolerances between a single mount as appose to a two piece mount .

Right here is the main benefit of using a one piece mount vs two separate rings. Not just Spuhr but any one piece mount.
Everything else is personal preference or a attachment point for something else.

 

[Sainte70]

Right here is the main benefit of using a one piece mount vs two separate rings. Not just Spuhr but any one piece mount.
Everything else is personal preference or a attachment point for something else.

The advantage of the Spuhr mount is that it is machined out one single piece of aluminum instead of three pieces to make the mount and ring caps. That way everything lines up perfectly.

I have a Spuhr 4006 on my R700 but, it makes my scope sit too high. I am probably going to look for someone who is willing to trade for a 4001 or 4011, most likely the 4011 for a 6mm drop

 

[SPAK]

The advantage of the Spuhr mount is that it is machined out one single piece of aluminum instead of three pieces to make the mount and ring caps. That way everything lines up perfectly.

I have a Spuhr 4006 on my R700 but, it makes my scope sit too high. I am probably going to look for someone who is willing to trade for a 4001 or 4011, most likely the 4011 for a 6mm drop

I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a difference in how a one piece mount vs well made rings actually makes on target or shootability of a rifle system. I could see the merit if your scope rail was twisted or under stress to begin with but if that’s the case using a one piece mount doesn’t change the fact that there is still stress on the action, it just mitigates the effects on a scope tube.

here’s what I know: I have taken scopes on and off my rifles, scopes out of the mounts and back into the mounts, barrels off, actions out of stock/chassis and put them all back together again and have only been off zero by .2-3mils at the most and usually .1-.2mil. If I just take scope off and back on the rail it’s almost always .1mil or no change in zero.

This Is with both spuhr mounts, spuhr rings, arc uni mount and arc rings. The only differences for me are how long it takes me to set up in arc rings vs spuhr mounts because of how many screws there are. I will also say it is easier to keep a scope from rotating when tightening using arc rings vs spuhr.

 

[candyx]

Even with the wedge under the scope it was rotating ?

 

[viking78]

Spuhr all the way.
Love the quality of these innovation mounts.
I know a punch of guys who have fucked them scope with rings, but none who has manage to do it with Spuhr mounts.
MKmachining billed buble level in all my scopes, no matter Spuhr has it, in my long neck, that mount buble stays too low.
But if i would have to use it, i think i could spot the buble, but MKmachining buble is just a bonus and makes it easy to see the buble.

 

[b2lee]

I run a 20MOA integrated base and needed wanted another 30MOA of elevation. To me, Spuhr is the best game in town to achieve this with precision.

 

[lancetkenyon]

Rings let you mount a scope lower over your rifle.
Good rings, properly installed, don't leave ring marks.
Good rings can easily be swapped between rifles, or removed and return to zero when replaced.
Good rings align.
You can get 1 cap screw, 2 cap screws, 4 cap screws, or 6 cap screws in good rings. Also, 1 or 2 ring mount screws per ring also.
You can get integrated levels in some rings.

I had one Spuhr mount before. I did not like it, as it mounted the scope too high for my tastes.

 

[flyright]

I think Spuhr is ideal for chassis/AR rifles where an inch and a half or so is the correct height. In fact, for that, they're the only thing I use. For standard rifles, rings seem the best option for lowest mounting. ARC, NF, Badger - many excellent rail/ring combos out there but for one piece, Spuhr can't be beat.

 

[kthomas]

Spuhr seems of obvious quality, but it's a bit overkill for most shooting. Looks like an excellent option if you use NV.

I use ARC's and am very happy with them. Awesome design. Have them on 3 rifles, up to .300NM. Easy to mount, no issues with scope slipping. Love that it's one bolt instead of ~8-16, that shit gets old.

My vote is ARC, unless you see yourself needing/wanting the modularity of the Spuhr.

 

[BCX]

Another added benefit of the Spuhr is the grooved ring caps. I had a scope slipping on a heavy recoiling rifle, glued my SB into a Spuhr...problem solved!

 

[DDT]

Rings let you mount a scope lower over your rifle.
Good rings, properly installed, don't leave ring marks.
Good rings can easily be swapped between rifles, or removed and return to zero when replaced.
Good rings align.
You can get 1 cap screw, 2 cap screws, 4 cap screws, or 6 cap screws in good rings. Also, 1 or 2 ring mount screws per ring also.
You can get integrated levels in some rings.

I had one Spuhr mount before. I did not like it, as it mounted the scope too high for my tastes.

yes, mounting height with SPUHR is obviously cons due to central mass of material which holds mount one piece. But you will never reach optical axis precision with separate rings. There always will be small drift / off axis placement with rings witch put some stress to the scope tube. This is the main and the most important advantage of one piece mounts - their ring offset / missalignment is very small compared to separate rings mounted on rail which has +/- tollerances itself ( flatness, geometric alignment...). You can bring rings close to unimount spec, but precisely lapped and mounted once, do not touch them anymore.

 

[99106]

I love my Sphur and I love my ARCs. They each have their place. Spuhr may be heavier than rings and base if weight is a concern and your fretting ounces or fractions of ounces. Spuhr bubble level is is useless for me personally. Rzr Gen2 ocular obscures it to the point I can't see the bubble between my cheekpiece and the ocular. Sphurs come in different heights, but your preferred dealer may not readily stock the height you need, but then again this is true with any rings.

The main advantage I see with Sphur other than attaching gadgets to it is you can buy the built in cant without having to buy another base. This may or may not be a factor depending on the distance you're shooting and your scopes adjustment capabilities. If you can get to X moa or mils with a zero moa base, not a big deal. If not you're going to need a new base. Then there's the wildcard what if, maybe you can't get a base with enough cant, you might add the Spuhr to a canted base to get additional mils / moa. I'd say just don't and rebarrel or buy a gun with a flatter shooting ammunition..

As for the leveling aid on the Spuhr, I used it, but wound up using a plumb line to set the vertical on my scope. In a perfect world I'm assuming you could use the bubble to level your gun, assuming your base tolerances are in spec and true, then use a plumb line to align the scope. Even then this is likely a starting point since you probably still need tweak after a tall target test.

The ARCs are quality like my Seekins and less expensive than the Spuhr. They just work, so not much to say other than I'd buy them again. The one piece vs two is a moot point to me. Bang you scope enough and it's going to get out of whack no matter what you use. Buy a quality scope, buy quality rings and base if required, just don't skimp, and you should be fine.

 

[pineoak]

I think Spuhr is ideal for chassis/AR rifles where an inch and a half or so is the correct height. In fact, for that, they're the only thing I use. For standard rifles, rings seem the best option for lowest mounting. ARC, NF, Badger - many excellent rail/ring combos out there but for one piece, Spuhr can't be beat.

A lot I agree with there. Though having owned both along with Seekins rings, I haven't noticed a difference in accuracy at 100 between them.

I'd use Spuhr or NF unimount if moving glass between guns, rings are fine if "set and forget" (check all tolerances/tightness using torque wrench)

 

[candyx]

Good video for one piece mounts and scope rings

 

[wade2big]

Good video for one piece mounts and scope rings

Neat video showing the difference. In reality it doesn’t matter at least to me. Maybe my hit percentage at distance would go up 1% if I switched. Who knows.

 

[flyright]

It would not go up .05% I'd be willing to bet. You'd just have less cosmetic marring on your scope...

 

[Btrain]

Interesting video... Appears a definite benefit on alignment

 

[DDT]

great video which may explain why some shooters have an issue with parallax adj., ring marks on scope tube etc. I am not talking that all these problems go from rings, but definitely a lot of them. Keep in mind that even very small missalignment (which you can not see with eyes) between rings or at poorly machined unimount causes stress - bending to the scope tube.

 

[Spuhr]

Here is the picture I see when i am aiming throgh the scope.
Level is seen with left eye as right eye looks through the scope.

A separate level is more visiable, obviously.
But this is there always, never lost...

 

[Spuhr]

For those who prefer a light mount that is only four screw we also have our hunting series of rings and mounts.
There is no built in level, and there is not as much possibilitys when it comes to attachments, but there is 1-2 for those who needs it.

 

[ohiofarmer]

For those who prefer a light mount that is only four screw we also have our hunting series of rings and mounts.
There is no built in level, and there is not as much possibilitys when it comes to attachments, but there is 1-2 for those who needs it.

Håkan, any plans to offer the Tikka T3 hunter mounts with any built-in cant?

 

[CSTactical]

We like both, it just depends on the individual setup.

 

[brianf]

For me personally I can see the level with my weak side eye. Putting the edge of the bubble on the line is perfectly centered if I were looking at it square. I could see it below the occular with a Bushnell lrhs.

Same here, bubble lines up with the left side line and I look at it with my “off eye”.
Easy for me but I shoot both eyes open.
Spuhr fan here.
After my first.. I have now swapped out all mounts to one piece spuhrs

 

[Spuhr]

Ohio farmer, nope there is currenly no plans for adding cant to our hunting style mounts.

 

[wilsoN_]

Here is the picture I see when i am aiming throgh the scope.
Level is seen with left eye as right eye looks through the scope.

A separate level is more visiable, obviously.
But this is there always, never lost...


View attachment 7214786

Is the bubble designed to be viewed from an angle or straight on?