|
Post by potatojudge on Apr 12, 2019 15:31:21 GMT -5
I'm curious what everyone's preference is for how and where they like their scope mounted on SA guns. For years I shot with a scoped FA 83 before handling a Ruger Hunter.
The Hunter feels much heavier because the weight is hung out on a lever. The ribbed barrel adds to this, but without a scope or rings the Hunter barrel handles really nicely.
Given the Ruger rear sight chanel, the Hunter barrel is the cleanest scope mount. Many, myself included, tend to see D&T of a Ruger topstrap as a negative. The same doesn't hold true for BFRs with their factory top straps simply because they're all that way and it's factory.
FA, while certainly more expensive, engineered a rear sight and top strap that is clean and shifts the weight of the scope toward the grip, a more comfortable location for me.
The stainless Ruger Max thread has me thinking: when Ruger markets a gun for hunting or long-range shooting, should they D&T the top strap and install plugs the way they do the MK series of 22 pistols? I would lean toward yes, it would be a selling point for me and I can't see it being a drawback for many buyers.
|
|
eskimo36
.375 Atomic
Oklahoma
Posts: 2,048
|
Post by eskimo36 on Apr 12, 2019 15:43:44 GMT -5
I like the scope mounted forward where the ocular lens is about even with the rear sight blade location. I agree with you on the heavy front but I don't shoot much offhand without a rest of some kind. I also feel it protects the scope more because you don't have the overhang.
|
|
|
Post by AxeHandle on Apr 12, 2019 15:53:12 GMT -5
Lots of personal preference here.. A boxers or briefs thing.
|
|
|
Post by bradshaw on Apr 12, 2019 17:17:58 GMT -5
I'm curious what everyone's preference is for how and where they like their scope mounted on SA guns. For years I shot with a scoped FA 83 before handling a Ruger Hunter. The Hunter feels much heavier because the weight is hung out on a lever. The ribbed barrel adds to this, but without a scope or rings the Hunter barrel handles really nicely. Given the Ruger rear sight chanel, the Hunter barrel is the cleanest scope mount. Many, myself included, tend to see D&T of a Ruger topstrap as a negative. The same doesn't hold true for BFRs with their factory top straps simply because they're all that way and it's factory. FA, while certainly more expensive, engineered a rear sight and top strap that is clean and shifts the weight of the scope toward the grip, a more comfortable location for me. The stainless Ruger Max thread has me thinking: when Ruger markets a gun for hunting or long-range shooting, should they D&T the top strap and install plugs the way they do the MK series of 22 pistols? I would lean toward yes, it would be a selling point for me and I can't see it being a drawback for many buyers. ***** Potatojudge.... excellent inquiry with questions enigmatic for the revolver shooter. Today, a revolver----even a single action which does not directly play to its Peacemaker origin----should be manufactured to accommodate optics. With ballistics exceeding the the capability of a SHARPSHOOTER, certainly by measure of consistency, a great revolver needs great sights. Optics take a major step in nailing down HUMAN ACCURACY. Optical advantage* To test revolver accuracy. * To test a bullet or load. * To avail the handgun hunter an extra hour each day. * To place a shot the irons don't see. Strength* Topstrap----provides the strongest place to mount a scope. This may be the only place to mount for earthquake cartridges. * Barrel----relies on thread contact between frame and barrel tenon. Since the barrel whips more than the frame, recoil may be rougher on rings and optic. Balance* Topstrap optic----over hand, may feel top-heavy. Muzzle may feel light, whippy. A long eyepiece or low mount may crowd hammer spur. Shorter eye relief. * Barrel optic----in front of hand, may feel as though muzzle dips. Longer eye relief. My personal takeThe barrel mount is steadier in offhand. I would not use it for recoil over .44 Mag/.45 Colt. For .454 Casull on up, a scope belongs on the topstrap. The versatility of a mount system which allows near-immediate choice of iron or optic cannot be denied. David Bradshaw
|
|
|
Post by kings6 on Apr 12, 2019 19:39:43 GMT -5
I like the mounting of the Freedom Arms guns best. That is why I had Alan Harton totally reconfigure the top strap of a 357 maximum to mimic the FA when he converted it to a 414. The Lovell mount or any other FA mounts bolts right in as does the FA rear sight. I had a 41 Hunter and it was too muzzle heavy for my tastes so away it went.
|
|
|
Post by coldtriggerfinger on Apr 13, 2019 2:58:13 GMT -5
For myself, I want the optic to provide all the advantages I'm after . And not bring any personal disadvantages. I don't want/won't have, the ocular housing of a scope in the way when earing back the hammer. Or be in my way when loading rounds or unloading empties. For hunting with a large caliber revolver, I want muzzle hang . And lastly, I really like how a Bisley Hunter model looks with a 2 power scope in the rings. Would love to have a Redhawk Hunter model in 45 Colt some day. Not very excited about the look of the SRH with a scope on it. But do like the look of one with an Ultra Dot in factory Ruger rings.
|
|
rkrcpa
.30 Stingray
Posts: 259
|
Post by rkrcpa on Apr 13, 2019 9:13:34 GMT -5
I prefer the scope mounted over the frame for better balance. To me the scope on the barrel would be too muzzle heavy. I have a Bisley so the hammer spur has plenty of room for my thumb. A scope mounted as such with a regular hammer is very crowded but I can make it work.
|
|
|
Post by CraigC on Apr 14, 2019 13:17:28 GMT -5
I also prefer a scope mounted over the frame but also like to keep my iron sights if I can. Which is why I have come to prefer the Super Redhawk for a hunting sixgun. Just don't like the way it balances with it mounted on the barrel.
|
|