-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Spuhr, ZCO, now A419 mounts
- Thread starter FNG1001
- Start date
Innovation happens in small ways sometimes. New materials stronger mounts in lighter packages. Spuhr was the undisputed champ for a while but A419, badger and others are producing some very high quality products. I’ve decided to invest in the badger ecosystem but there’s some new great options out there now
Everyone trying to cash in on slumping sales across the board. Inflation is killing alot of discretionary and luxury purchasing. .
Ask yourself what ecosystem you want to be tied to. Spuhr is mature, has a ton of mounting options and is proven. The only downside is their fastners tend to be weak and they redesigned the clamping bar to prevent failure. Then again if you need a sacrificial part, better to be a replaceable fastner than the actual mount itself. Its not like you can go wrong with any of these option (well some are more failure prone than others) but they will all work for the most part.
Ask yourself what ecosystem you want to be tied to. Spuhr is mature, has a ton of mounting options and is proven. The only downside is their fastners tend to be weak and they redesigned the clamping bar to prevent failure. Then again if you need a sacrificial part, better to be a replaceable fastner than the actual mount itself. Its not like you can go wrong with any of these option (well some are more failure prone than others) but they will all work for the most part.
Not shitting on spuhr since I own one. But it’s also the only mount I own to ever break from normal weekend shooting. (Clamping bar failure with proper torque specs)
I think alot of people over torqued them, which is why they fail. Its easy to stack torque on them, even with something like fix it sticks. There is a feel for tightening a fastner and you can tell when you are going past the readout. if 3 stop pretty fast and one keeps going and you have to crank harder despite it being same setting.......well there you go. Obviously they were a weak part, but in the half dozen i have owned for many years (and i am pulling them about once a week to clean or swap barrels) I have yet to have a bar break. Have some wallered out fastners but thats about it. You need to know when to stop by feel, like most things.
I know a number of people who have had it happen though. Seen some other brands break at matches as well.
I know a number of people who have had it happen though. Seen some other brands break at matches as well.
I started with the ubiquitous Seekeis/Vortex Precision Rings as my go-to and never had a problem... then I decided I needed a 1-piece mount (since that's what a lot of the cool kids run)... so it was Badger, Spuhr, then MPA, thought about trying an ARC or A419... now I'm back to using the Seekins/Vortex rings again.
There are many solid options, it just depends on what you're after. It turns out that for me I like simple and reliable, no surprises, so a simple pair of beefy rings does the trick.
There are many solid options, it just depends on what you're after. It turns out that for me I like simple and reliable, no surprises, so a simple pair of beefy rings does the trick.
Ditto. Slowing getting rid of my Spuhrs and replacing them with Andys mounts.
I've had Spuhrs, Vortex, ARCs and a few others. I ended up settling on Hawkins for the most part. I'm going to try the new Grey Ops just because I needed a mount for a Mk5 and they had 35mm 1.5" tall mounts in stock.
Andy's mounts are hard to beat for their toughness and simplicity.
Andy's mounts are hard to beat for their toughness and simplicity.
I forgot about the new Gray Ops mount... if I hadn't just mounted a scope in a new set of rings I would be down to try it as well. Looks like he fixed most of the stuff I haven't dug with most of the other mounts (rings too close together with Spuhr and sometimes MPAs, 4 cross-bolts vs 2) and maybe borrowed some of the good features from others' mounts (6 screw caps like Badger, line-alignment-thingys ala ARC).
OP, might be worth a look..
34mm Precision Scope Mounts
Designed for shooters, by shooters. This mount encompasses everything needed for ultimate consistency and reliability. Every mount is inspected via CMM before it leaves our facility, guaranteeing you are getting the very best for you're precision setup. FEATURES: 7075 Aluminum Integrated...
grayopscnc.com
Are these the MDT mounts? They looked good, but I'll need one in 36mm, which they don't offer.
They all make nice mounts, but ARC rings and mounts hands down imo
+1 for ARC mounts. The ring clamping design is still the best user experience in my opinion, and they're the cheapest option (sometimes by a very large margin). They do give up some ground on attachment options, so if you're bolting lots of stuff on there it's probably not the droid you're looking for; other than that, I think they're excellent.
No, I had forgotten that MDT makes a pretty solid mount as well
Their Mbrace mounts are probally the weakest modern mount out there. Have yet to see old school M10rings or M10 mounts fail, but i have seen mbrace mount crack in half on a stage. There is a reason they are the cheapest option. I am an ARC rings fan too, so take it for what its worth.
Haven’t seen anything here about Mbrace mounts breaking. First I’ve heard of that
A couple guys up here have had theirs snap at the pivot point. ARC worked with them and replaced them if I'm not mistaken.
Or gave them their money back, which is stand up move by ARC, but doesn't change the fact the mount is failure prone.
Duly noted, good to know! So it was the pin that sheared?
If you like Italian sport cars, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Alfa Romeo, Maserati etc, i think you might want to look the brand called Audere too.
I have used Audere mounts for years now, and i have had no complaining of the quality.
Here is my ZCO 527 sitting on a Adversus mount.
MKMachining does import these to US.
I have used Audere mounts for years now, and i have had no complaining of the quality.
Here is my ZCO 527 sitting on a Adversus mount.
MKMachining does import these to US.
The MPA mount and ZCO block seem to be very well thought out from a design perspective.
It’s ‘cause ur a BEAST broseph
Ok, now that the jokes are over, I have one Spuhr. Looks cool. Has 10,000 fasteners.
I also have a bunch of Arc M10 rings and they are awesome to use. Can’t speak to the MBrace stuff…when I need some more rings that’s the direction I might go.
I especially am intrigued with Arc’s one-piece Mbrace mount and the way a WMLRF attaches. I initially was sorta cool to a WMLRF but…gdamnit it just might make sense.
And they say a house remodel is a
pit lol
No it was the fingers that hold the pin. They sheared off.
I’ve broken one at this point. It was 100% user error, not the mount. In my case, I didn’t realize the pin partially backed out when there was no torque on the top clamping screw. When I torqued the top clamping screw it caused the hinge to be forcefully misaligned and the aluminum cracked. I suspect failures in this point are user error not a factory defect. This is why, now, there is a very clear warning in the instructions to check that the steel pin is centered in the mount before torquing the top clamping screw. I’m man enough to admit I screwed up and I paid them for a replacement top when I could have lied about it to get a free piece.
Yeah, that slide-y little pin is my one critique of those rings. Quite a few times I’ve gotten everything just perfect and start tightening and…fuck!…untighten…push pins flush…bump scope…curse more…etc
Availability for Badger ecosystem is ass though. I run all C1 mounts now, but getting the top rings, adapters, etc. can be really frustrating in addition to some of the mounts disappearing from the market for 6 months at a time or longer.
Last edited:
I've had a 45% failure rate with spuhr-- 5 broken clamp bars between 11 mounts. I don't run them anymore. Although they look neat and the 45 degree ring split design makes for a clear view of the turrets, I just don't trust them to come out of the safe in one piece and ready to use anymore.
Also, spuhr having over constrained rings (the scope tube and the flathead ring cap screws both try to center the ring cap) isn't a great design idea, ideally the cap should center only on the scope tube and the screws should be socket or button head so they're flat on the engagement surface so the screws don't try and pull the ring cap around.
I've never liked spuhrs accessory mounting system as it only engages a couple of threads, and screws that are a hair too long can dig into the scope tube. I know it works for people, but only engaging .150"-ish of threads with the thread pitch they use is asking for trouble IMO, especially if mounting something heavy like an lrf.
I now run ARC m-brace rings and mounts where I don't need cantilever, and badger condition 1 where I need cantilever mounts... very happy with both.
As of now the ARC mounts don't have as many accessories available compared to spuhr, but I will say their lrf mount is the best thought out and likely the stoutest as it doesn't impart any load into the ring cap or scope tube (and if you do the math for a cantilever lrf mount attached to a scope ring that load under recoil or a hard knock isn't trivial.) The top of the rings with the cross bolt on the ARC mounts sits a bit higher than spuhr and can make low turrets harder to see without lifting your head, but I'll live with that for not dealing with broken clamp bars.
Regarding ARC ring hinge failures... I have 6 m-brace mounts and 3 sets of m-brace rings in service now with zero failures. I do recognize the hinge pin and ring hinge fingers will be the likely potential failure point on the m-brace rings, but so far I've had no issues. If my ARC mounts start to have multiple repeat failures like my spuhr mounts did I'll warranty them and sell them and try another brand yet again... but so far so good, I've yet to take an ARC mount out of the safe and find it broken-- something which happened to me 5 times with spuhr.
If I had to switch mount brands again, not sure what I'd use at this point. The MPA or Audere mounts possibly, but the new Seekins mount looks interesting too; I've used a lot of Seekins rings in the past with no issues.
Also, spuhr having over constrained rings (the scope tube and the flathead ring cap screws both try to center the ring cap) isn't a great design idea, ideally the cap should center only on the scope tube and the screws should be socket or button head so they're flat on the engagement surface so the screws don't try and pull the ring cap around.
I've never liked spuhrs accessory mounting system as it only engages a couple of threads, and screws that are a hair too long can dig into the scope tube. I know it works for people, but only engaging .150"-ish of threads with the thread pitch they use is asking for trouble IMO, especially if mounting something heavy like an lrf.
I now run ARC m-brace rings and mounts where I don't need cantilever, and badger condition 1 where I need cantilever mounts... very happy with both.
As of now the ARC mounts don't have as many accessories available compared to spuhr, but I will say their lrf mount is the best thought out and likely the stoutest as it doesn't impart any load into the ring cap or scope tube (and if you do the math for a cantilever lrf mount attached to a scope ring that load under recoil or a hard knock isn't trivial.) The top of the rings with the cross bolt on the ARC mounts sits a bit higher than spuhr and can make low turrets harder to see without lifting your head, but I'll live with that for not dealing with broken clamp bars.
Regarding ARC ring hinge failures... I have 6 m-brace mounts and 3 sets of m-brace rings in service now with zero failures. I do recognize the hinge pin and ring hinge fingers will be the likely potential failure point on the m-brace rings, but so far I've had no issues. If my ARC mounts start to have multiple repeat failures like my spuhr mounts did I'll warranty them and sell them and try another brand yet again... but so far so good, I've yet to take an ARC mount out of the safe and find it broken-- something which happened to me 5 times with spuhr.
If I had to switch mount brands again, not sure what I'd use at this point. The MPA or Audere mounts possibly, but the new Seekins mount looks interesting too; I've used a lot of Seekins rings in the past with no issues.
If you broke 5 spuhr mounts by taking them out of the safe....well there is a common denominator here. I would question your torquing procedure and equipment. I take mine off and reinstall them weekly for years now and have yet to have a failure. I also don't go shrek on them like someone people who have litte/no feel for fastners.
Pretty sure I have an mpa mount in 36mm that I had up for sale but I don't think it sold. Its a lot like the mdt stuff, which i too love their elite rings. It's 1.25 or so tall.
Funny how a few posts up you call the ARC mounts "failure prone" and "probably the weakest modern mount out there" after seeing 2 failures, but when I have 5 spuhr clamp bars fail you immediately blame the user and don't question the design of the mount. Maybe the users of the broken ARC mounts you saw messed up during installation?
I will say my 45% spuhr failure rate is rather eye opening and hints at user error, but then again I often have shit luck.
That being said, the common denominator of my 5x spuhr clamp bar failures is bad design or material, or likely a combination of both IMO.
I never lubricated the threads in the spuhr mounts which would increase bolt stretch and clamp load far beyond the provided dry thread torque specs at the same final torque value, and I use an expensive Mountz torque driver that I check around 4 times a year in the NIST traceable calibration lab at work. Thus I can confidently rule out improper installation technique (i.e. lubricating the threads and tightening them to dry thread torque specs without reducing the final torque value appropriately) or using an out of spec torque driver that severely overtightened the hardware as possible reasons for the failures. That leaves the mount itself or an out of spec picatinny rail as the cause, and with 5 failures across multiple rifles with multiple brands of picatinny rails I'm going to say it's probably the mounts.
I will say all the clamp bars that cracked on me were the earlier thinner design, but I've seen several pictures of the updated thicker design clamp bars cracked too. The clamp bars remain a somewhat common failure point of the spuhr mounts.
One thing to note that I wish other manufacturers would do... ARC provides lubricated thread torque specs, so if you install the bolts dry you end up with lower stretch/stress in the joint, which might mean your scope slips under recoil. That's much better than the opposite situation which is tightening lubricated hardware to dry thread torque specs, which can result in excess stress/stretch, a dented scope tube, stripped threads, broken bolts, etc.
Last edited:
Yup. I'm very happy with my zco mounts. I've had most of the go to mounts and I liked the ARC mbrace a lot but man it's just so bulky and heavy. The zco mount does everything I want and does it well and is perfect imo
Someone make a dang send it mount for the ARC. Only thing keeping me from going away from Spuhr. I want the send it and fibers to stay attached to the scope/mount on removal. And don’t want it hanging way under or over the mount.
If there are other options than Spuhr to use a send it/brand built setup, to keep it all as one unit and not be obnoxious I’m all ears.
If there are other options than Spuhr to use a send it/brand built setup, to keep it all as one unit and not be obnoxious I’m all ears.
I really like the MDT mount with the stepped mating surface that allow you to torque one side down completely and still move the scope and then final torque down the other side after all adjusting is done.
Those 419 mounts look sweet also.
Those 419 mounts look sweet also.
Has anyone had any experience with the Griffin mount? Looks like a good design, but I've never seen one in the wild.
that's because most people don't like sperm dripping all over their rifle
After the match this weekend, Add 2 more Mbrace Failures. Guy broke one that was a replacement for one that already broke. Not even the same guy I was talking about before. We were squaded up talking about it.
What sucks is, when they snap, its not always apparent. You will start having elevation issues and not be able to figure out it. When you look closer or disassemble the mount, you will see it.
He was going to get it warranted and replaced, Told him to call ARC and demand a refund. They really need to test their shit before they sell it, like their Mags that most people refuse to run (or you have to drop another $80 into each mag plus run dry graphite on inside, and clean after every other match to keep running).
Still havent broken a spuhr, old or new style. Just ordered another one from @MOUNTIC. They just work.
Sounds similar to when my first spuhr clamp bar cracked. I started missing a 6" gong on the 550 yard line and didn't know why. Not huge misses, but off enough to know something was wrong. Thought I had a scope taking a dump and it was only when I got home I noticed the hairline crack in the clamp bar, it was letting the mount wiggle around a bit.
Learned my lesson after that to look the mounts over closely before heading to the range, and the other 4 failed clamp bars I noticed when taking the guns out of the safe. Clamp bars were intact last time I used them-- in some cases they sat in the safe unused for almost a year, others only a couple of weeks since their last use. The failures were spread out across a few years with mounts from varied years of production, as I purchased and used spuhr for about 10 years.
After 5 failed clamp bars I dumped spuhr. Any scope mount that requires me to stock spare parts for failure prone components isn't something I can rely on. I'll also say they should have better tested their product because an end user should not have a 45% failure rate. On their tall gen 1 cantilever picatinny mounts you could easily see the tall and thin clamp bars flexing when you torqued the bolts (I had 2 of those fail, the other 3 failures were on 1.18" and 1.5" height 34mm non cantilever picatinny mounts that used the shorter style clamp bars.)
I'll dump the m-brace mounts just like spuhr if I start having failures, but haven't had any yet. My oldest m-brace is 24 months old and I've changed scopes in it 3 times, and after my spuhr issues I look at scope mounts carefully before heading out to shoot so I don't have a wasted trip.
Still not sure what I'd change to at this point if I had to switch mounts and rings again. Some good suggestions in this thread; the Hawkins and MDT mounts look interesting too.
Last edited:
I like ARC and their products and they do stand behind them. I had a Mount break last month during a match, but didn’t know it until I got home.
400 yard skill stage, and missed all 8 targets.
400 yard skill stage, and missed all 8 targets.
Not as mainstream, but an amazing mount, is the Near manufacturing Alphamount.
Machining is work-of-art level, made with a proprietary titanium alloy so not too heavy, and available in all ring sizes up to 36mm and a bunch of different heights. His website hasn’t been updated in forever but he always answers emails and phone calls.
Machining is work-of-art level, made with a proprietary titanium alloy so not too heavy, and available in all ring sizes up to 36mm and a bunch of different heights. His website hasn’t been updated in forever but he always answers emails and phone calls.
Tactical cap with Spuhr accessory mount interface is available too.
So are there any options I am not aware of that ISNT a sphur that has the specs below - rings or mounts.
36mm tube
9ish oz or ideally less
1.5ish height
Diving board available
Side mount pic rail or send it level specific mount separate from the diving board
I think it's just the gray ops mount?
36mm tube
9ish oz or ideally less
1.5ish height
Diving board available
Side mount pic rail or send it level specific mount separate from the diving board
I think it's just the gray ops mount?
Last edited:
Similar threads
