Revolver scope location

[potatojudge]

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]

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.

[AxeHandle]

Lots of personal preference here.. A boxers or briefs thing.

[bradshaw]

Apr 12, 2019 15:31:21 GMT -5 potatojudge said:

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 take
The 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

[kings6]

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.

[coldtriggerfinger]

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]

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.

[CraigC]

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.