High End Vs Budget Scope Mounts

[angrybear]

I've never buggered any of my set ups using cheaper mounts. I've always had very good results which was what led me to ask the initial question. I think there are probably others who may think the same but who daren't say for fear of being shot down by the 'you get what you pay for' brigade.

So anyway, I need some 30mm medium height mounts to fit a 11mm dovetail rail. Can you tell me why I should consider buying a set of BKL's for around the £70 mark when I can get the equivalent Hawke branded mounts for £20?

What do the BKL's do that the Hawkes don't? That's all I'm asking Mr angrybearwithasorehead..

Well for a start they self centre if one side of the mount is fixed & the clamp is on the other side,then the centre line is obviously also fixed & any error/gap has to be entirely on the clamp side.

BKL's don't have a separate clamp, they split up the middle so both legs flex equally which insures the scope sits centred.

If the scope isn't exactly centred your zero will move laterally as the target range changes, & it only takes a fraction of a mm at the muzzle to give 10mm+ down range, of course if you only shoot at one fixed range it doesn't matter.

Also; £70 for BKL's is a rip off & I'm not sure why you used Hawke in your above comparison, Hawke match mounts are equally as good as Sportsmatch & nearly as good as BKL, it's the £5 no-name single strap cr*p that need's to be avoided.
If you've never tried using them, or any other "high end" mounts how can you possibly comment that they're not worth it .

[rabbitslayer]

If you've never tried using them, or any other "high end" mounts how can you possibly comment that they're not worth it .

I never said they weren't worth it angrybear. I said that I use cheap scope mounts (I never mentioned single strap mounts either), and that I have never had any issues. They have always held the scope firm without any creep and as far as I can tell the scopes have all been evenly centred. As such, the question I raised was - why would I look to spend six times the price on a pair of mounts that don't do any better or less of a job than the cheaper version? Jeeez.. how many more times do you need me to explain?

[angrybear]

I never said they weren't worth it angrybear. I said that I use cheap scope mounts (I never mentioned single strap mounts either), and that I have never had any issues. They have always held the scope firm without any creep and as far as I can tell the scopes have all been evenly centred. As such, the question I raised was - why would I look to spend six times the price on a pair of mounts that don't do any better or less of a job than the cheaper version? Jeeez.. how many more times do you need me to explain?

And I have explained why they do a better job, frankly I don't give a flying ? what anyone else uses,

I've seen the benefit through testing, so I use something that has proved itself to work, & offer my advice & opinion to those who are asking for advice.

Some people claim they've never had an issue with cheap kit, just like some people claim they've never had a runner

[FPoole]

I've had the clamp snap into on cheaper mounts, more than once. Also had the edge snap off the bevel of the clamp. Several dented scope tubes as well. If you're happy with the less expensive mounts, why ask the question? You're mind is apparently already made up and nothing BKL/Sportsmatch users tell you will change your mind. BKL have served me much better than Sportsmatch, but lesser stuff has just broken, or has marred my scopes.

[robs5230]

I'm in total agreement with Angrybear here.

Air rifle cylinders have different diameters, different width grooves, and also grooves machined to a different pattern.

pcp breeches also have rails cut differently. I've never seen a set of sportsmatch sit straight on bsa breech let alone cheaper mounts. BSA claim the grooves are 11mm but the way they machine them means one sided clamping mounts sit to one side, whichever way you spin the clamp.

Mounts that clamp on one side have little chance of fitting all these options properly.
I'll only use Sportsmatch where I know they're a very good fit other than that I use BKL.

As I said above, if you're happy using cheaper mounts, crack on. But you won't convince those who have learned better over the years to bin their quality mounts and go back to cheapies.

I get plenty of rifles come my way (I just like guns). All the cheap mounts that any come with are binned with no exception. I must bin 10 sets of cheap mounts every year.

And like Angrybear, in the 35+ years I've been shooting air rifles, I've never had to shim a scope either..

[bootneckbob]

Thought I'd jump in on this one too. I use Leupold Quick Release mounts, have done for years but before that I used Sportsmatch and before that probably some cheap tat because I knew no better.
Once you start paying £1000+ for your rifle then the same for the scope why on earth ruin that with cheap poorly made mounts which will probably end up marking the rifle and scope?

I think a lot of this disscussion is also without context. Cheap rifle, cheap scope plinking at 25-30 yards at your local air gun club cheap mounts would be appropriate. Expensive rifle, expensive scope, competition shooting at varible ranges from 10-55yds and travelling to those competitons by car the costs are now soaring up so to put on cheap mounts with all that potential for knocks and it's not worth the risk.

As I said I use the Leupold mounts because I shoot multiple disciplines with a single rifle. So I'll shoot HFT with one scope, whip it off put on the FT scope, re fill and I'm good to go again. No POA issues. They are fitted to weaver rails which makes the alighnment almost bombproof. It's also for removal for fitting in cabinets, cleaning and general transport. For me that more than makes up for the initial cost.

I remember having to shim a scope once but not since I bought decent mounts.

[LESS THAN FORTUITOUS KENNETH]

I've asked this question many times. I always get a fairly even spread of answers, both arguments having their merits. So lets try looking at it this way: A few select firms bring out a new pellet. It's made to excruciating levels of quality and uniformity. It doesn't really give a marked difference over pellets currently on offer though. It does however cost three times as much as current offerings. Do you pay three times as much to "guarantee" you are getting the best possible?