Rifle Scopes Why aren't integral scope rails more popular?

[capp325]

By "integral scope rail' I mean something like Zeiss ZM/VM:



This mounting system is fairly popular in Europe (Swarovski, Zeiss, Leica and a few others make compatible scopes ) but it is pretty much unheard of in North America. I wonder why? In theory, it seems vastly superior to traditional scope rings, for obvious reasons: there is no tension applied to the tube, you don't have to worry about over-torquing or under-torquing, no risk of the scope slipping under recoil, no need to lap rings, no need to fiddle with the bubble level to center the reticle...seems like a no brainer, really. In the old days, when scopes were made from tubular extrusions, rings were a necessity. Nowadays, most quality scopes are machined from barstock, so adding an integral rail is neither difficult nor expensive. Am I missing something?

 

[918v]

not as sturdy / can’t take a hit and maintain zero

 

[Stooxie]

I've wondered the same thing and for all the same reasons. Seems infinitely easier, stronger, lower risk, etc.

-Stooxie

 

[withoutwarning]

Not a fan of that system.
I don’t have a problem with rings, it could be improved and I’m sure it will be in the future with some kind of new standard but the trouble is everyone adopting it. If I were to go that route I’d just rather something like the vcog with the mount built into the scope and just mount it straight onto the rail. The drawbacks to that kind of thing though are pretty obvious.

 

[AverageGrunt]

Not sturdy

 

[capp325]

Not sturdy

Is that a fact though? From the pictures and videos that I've seen, it doesn't look particularly fragile. In fact, it looks sturdier then, say, a picatinny rail-type attachment.

 

[308pirate]

not as sturdy / can’t take a hit and maintain zero

Kinda funny you say that because the opposite is one of the main selling points advertised by their makers.

Do you have significant experience with these systems, or like the typical American you're talking out of your ass about something you have no experience with?

 

[Sharpened Graphite]

My guess is inertia of the status quo. Same reason sub-optimal calibers are military standard.

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

Kinda funny you say that because the opposite is one of the main selling points advertised by their makers.

Do you have significant experience with these systems, or like the typical American you're talking out of your ass about something you have no experience with?

Manufacturers exaggerate and/or lie to sell products all the time. It's wise not to encourage any obsequious gratification of marketing pageantry with any product. From a physics and engineering standpoint, it seems like an unremarkable design compared to traditional mounts. I have zero experience with them, I'm just calling it like I see it. Feel free to enlighten our speculation with facts.

 

[918v]

Kinda funny you say that because the opposite is one of the main selling points advertised by their makers.

Do you have significant experience with these systems, or like the typical American you're talking out of your ass about something you have no experience with?

Clearly, you are not mechanically inclined.

 

[308pirate]

Manufacturers exaggerate and/or lie to sell products all the time. It's wise not to encourage any obsequious gratification of marketing pageantry with any product. From a physics and engineering standpoint, it seems like an unremarkable design compared to traditional mounts. I have zero experience with them, I'm just calling it like I see it. Feel free to enlighten our speculation with facts.

Yes, manufacturers exaggerate, no doubt.

I do know a few things: dovetails have been used for scope mounting in Europe since forever. These mounts seem popular in Europe and they wouldn't be if they sucked. Hunting in Europe is much more expensive than it is here so I doubt people there would gamble their hunts on shitty scope mounts.

If such a design sucked so much why would Zeiss, Leica, Swarovksi, and Schmidt + Bender all offer some version of it? And why would many other Euro scope makers adopt the Zeiss dovetail?

 

[308pirate]

Clearly, you are not mechanically inclined.

Clearly, you answered my question by admitting you're guessing and you've never used one of these scopes.

And clearly you don't know anything about my professional background or experience. Not that I give a shit, mind you.

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

Mispost.

 

[918v]

Clearly, you answered my question by admitting you're guessing and you've never used one of these scopes.

And clearly you don't know anything about my professional background or experience. Not that I give a shit, mind you.

There are plenty of manufacturers lacking imagination. If you had some you’d immediately see why this system is weaker than a pic rail setup.

 

[308pirate]

I've never used a scope with that kind of mount. However, unlike some here, I'm humble enough to give credit and benefit of the doubt to those whose job it is to design and engineer such things particularly when they seem to have some commercial success in their home market.

I don't have the arrogance to put them down as shit without even ever seen one in person, which I'm sure is the case with pretty much everyone criticizing them here.

 

[Baner]

Only negative thing i can say about the rail is that the mounts are rather expensive.

Otherwise it's extremely durable and has been around for 50+ years, mostly found on drillings and double rifles(usually a pivot or claw mount).
if it was crap, people wouldn't put a scope with it on a gun that costs everywhere from 2.000$ to 100.000$, or on rifles used for dangerous game.

 

[308pirate]

There are plenty of manufacturers lacking imagination. If you had some you’d immediately see why this system is weaker than a pic rail setup.

Please continue to admit that you've never seen, let alone used one of these systems. It makes you look pretty stupid when you dismiss them

 

[capp325]

If I have a rifle now that doesn't have one of these mounts, I have to install a mount for the new system on my rifle. I can do the same thing with a one-piece mount already.

Actually, you don't need a special mount on the rifle itself. They make bases with picatinny/weaver attachments on one side (receiver side) and dovetail attachments on the other side for the scope itself.

 

[koshkin]

I've used it a couple of times and it seemed to work well. With well made mounts I doubt there is going to be a whole lot of difference in terms of durability, but there is definitely less chance of damaging or deforming the scope using rail mounts.

I suspect machining the scope tube for an integral rail mount is a fair bit more expensive, but aside from that I suspect traditional ringmounts persist largely due to industry intertia.

As digital scopes become ever more common, I suspect we will see more implementations of this type of a mounting system. Once you step away from classical optics, a round tube does not make a whole lot of sense.

ILya

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

What is crazy is that if they marketed and advertised them as being "Mark Free" system then people would be all over them here in the USA because just look at the number of post of people asking about what best ring is that will not leave a mark on my scope, look at the number of scopes for sale with "no ring marks" as their key phrase lolol.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[Scotch_egg]

I have a Zeiss V8 2.8-20X56 rail mounted scope on my Blaser hunting rifle. It is a very strong interface that guarantees you won’t get a canted reticle when setting up. You won’t damage the tube with over torquing rings and finding correct eye relief when installing is simple and won’t mark the tube.

Mount wise as already stated you can buy picatinny interface from several manufactures.

It is different and more expensive so I’m not surprised it is met with resistance. I also agree with Ilya that the added machining during manufacturing is a significant reason more companies don’t offer it.

The rail has to be installed perfectly aligned a process that will take more time and time money which the end user doesnt want to pay when in reality good quality rings now exist.

 

[Stooxie]

I'd trust a CNC machined receiver base adapter any day over rings. It's fascinating to see the resistance to the idea in this thread, and from people who've never experienced it. I guess that answers the question, doesn't it. The European companies probably figure it's far easier to sell to American biases than try to change them. And doubly ironic since half this forum is about people buying super expensive chassis and tactical glass for their equally expensive barreled actions. Only to use some bullshit ring system between the two?

Now I also understand the rise of 6.5 Grendel <insert Mark Levin voice screaming "THAT'S RIGHT I SAID IT!" here...>

-Stooxie

 

[Stooxie]

Hi,

What is crazy is that if they marketed and advertised them as being "Mark Free" system then people would be all over them here in the USA because just look at the number of post of people asking about what best ring is that will not leave a mark on my scope, look at the number of scopes for sale with "no ring marks" as their key phrase lolol.

Sincerely,
Theis

100% this.

-Stooxie

 

[Garyc]

not as sturdy / can’t take a hit and maintain zero

I disagree completely with this statement. I have a swarovski PH 2.5-10 rail mount scope. It only takes a cursory look to tell that it's a much sturdier system than any ring/base combination. You've basically got a standard scope tube with a small I beam integrated into it. The multiple failure points inherent in standard rings/bases are eliminated with a rail mounts. They tend to be expensive and that along with basic ignorance about them is probably what keeps them from common use in the U.S.

 

[whatsupdoc]

That backbone would increase the rigidity of the scope tube and there would be zero stress on the tube due to misaligned rings.
Scope slipping in the rings would be eliminated.

My 30 year old rimfire scope has a no ring design and it worked perfectly.

 

[308pirate]

not as sturdy / can’t take a hit and maintain zero

I disagree completely with this statement. I have a swarovski PH 2.5-10 rail mount scope. It only takes a cursory look to tell that it's a much sturdier system than any ring/base combination. You've basically got a standard scope tube with a small I beam integrated into it. The multiple failure points inherent in standard rings/bases are eliminated with a rail mounts. They tend to be expensive and that along with basic ignorance about them is probably what keeps them from common use in the U.S.

So, I wonder what tidbits of knowledge 918v has for us now on this scope mount system........

 

[Baner]

Yeah, but that defeats the purpose because now you're counting on the adapter to also be as true and cant-free as the rail and the mount. Again, it's not offering a lot that I. Can see that you can't get with a one-piece mount that directly attaches the scope to the rail or receiver, assuming the mounts are both equally good.

I'm not saying picatinny rails or screw-in ring mounts are necessarily superior, jus trhat there's not a big market draw for a new system that means replacing your old scopes and buying new rifles or new mounts/adaptors. I could see a lightweight rifle like a Kimber maybe offering some in the interest of weight savings.

Wouldn't call it a new system, probably older than the scope rings.

But probably new to most of you barbarians on the other side of the pond tho.

It's a nisch market for these, if you got a beautiful drilling or double rifle then the rail system is the way to go.
That why some manufacturers still offers it as an option when ordering a new scope.

Also fit perfectly fine on some rifles too, had a Swarovski z6i with rail and a Zeiss Diarange on my Blaser R8 Success and have had some older scopes on drillings.
Not something for the long range stuff tho.


/Baner