High End Vs Budget Scope Mounts

[robs5230]

Yes you're right. We buy whatever pellets perform the best in a given barrel. BUT... if 'cheap and nasty' Spitfire gave you the same group size as JSB's, would you not be tempted to make a SPITFIRE purchase?

You've asked the questions and got mixed answers.
Your choice to make now.
Good luck with whatever you decide. I'm off down the shed to throw some more cheap mounts in the bin.

[Phil Russell]

Very interesting thread with many types of answer. Personally I have never been part of the 'I must spend a lot of money on a particular item because I spent a lot on another item' brigade. I spend what I need to get a good answer. If I have a rifle that performs very well with a particular set of mounts and a particular scope; as witnessed by no apparent change of zero etc over time, then I leave it well alone. Would I want to change the mounts to a more expensive set for a perceived improvement? No. If I thought the mounts were a weak link I would think of changing them, starting with trying other sets I have, including sets from the cheaper end of the range and culminating in what, to me, are the more expensive end of the range e.g. Sportsmatch. Would I spend much more on supposedly more expensive makes? No. But if it was clear I needed, for example, an adjustable mount for a particular rifle (and don't tell me it never happens) then I would buy one. In the same vein, would I buy the really el-cheapo mounts that cost a couple of quid from 'that site', then no, I would not as I have seen some on s/h rifles I have bought and found them lacking in some area.
In conclusion; if it works well, I see no reason to change. Money does not always buy a product that works better then a cheaper product.
But if you want to buy the best that money can buy ... I have no problems with that either as I am fully aware that 'pride in ownership' comes into the equation.
Cheers, Phil

[robs5230]

Very interesting thread with many types of answer. Personally I have never been part of the 'I must spend a lot of money on a particular item because I spent a lot on another item' brigade. I spend what I need to get a good answer. If I have a rifle that performs very well with a particular set of mounts and a particular scope; as witnessed by no apparent change of zero etc over time, then I leave it well alone. Would I want to change the mounts to a more expensive set for a perceived improvement? No. If I thought the mounts were a weak link I would think of changing them, starting with trying other sets I have, including sets from the cheaper end of the range and culminating in what, to me, are the more expensive end of the range e.g. Sportsmatch. Would I spend much more on supposedly more expensive makes? No. But if it was clear I needed, for example, an adjustable mount for a particular rifle (and don't tell me it never happens) then I would buy one. In the same vein, would I buy the really el-cheapo mounts that cost a couple of quid from 'that site', then no, I would not as I have seen some on s/h rifles I have bought and found them lacking in some area.
In conclusion; if it works well, I see no reason to change. Money does not always buy a product that works better then a cheaper product.
But if you want to buy the best that money can buy ... I have no problems with that either as I am fully aware that 'pride in ownership' comes into the equation.
Cheers, Phil

I appreciate where you're coming from Phil, but for me , mounts are about function. Period.
I don't buy any kit because it looks good and have certainly never considered mounts as any sort of bling or must have.
My own personal experiences with cheaper offerings have dictated that I purchase better mounts is all.

[angrybear]

Yes you're right. We buy whatever pellets perform the best in a given barrel. BUT... if 'cheap and nasty' Spitfire gave you the same group size as JSB's, would you not be tempted to make a SPITFIRE purchase?

And you've totally missed the point again by referring to performance,
Do you test & compare your cheap no-name mounts with those of better brands ?

My point with the pellets is that we don't buy cheap purely because they're cheap, regardless of how they shoot, but that seems to be exactly what you are saying about the mounts buy cheap for the sake of it

I have tested different mounts because when fitted to a rimfire rifle those errors between POI at 20yds & POI at 150yds can be lateral movement of 2" or more.

[Phil Russell]

I appreciate where you're coming from Phil, but for me , mounts are about function. Period.
I don't buy any kit because it looks good and have certainly never considered mounts as any sort of bling or must have.
My own personal experiences with cheaper offerings have dictated that I purchase better mounts is all.

I think we are in agreement with each other. My view is that function comes first and if a set of 'cheaper' mounts function well and I cannot believe that a far more expensive set would function better, then I stay with the tried and tested, to me, cheaper mounts.
I also believe that there can be a difference between el-cheapo mounts at the very bottom of the 'mount cost spectrum' and others that are more expensive but which may be regarded as 'cheap' by those people used to buying the most expensive mounts. In this case you might regard Sportsmatch as cheap compared to the cost of other makes ... or so I am led to believe. As I have never bought any mounts more expensive than Sportsmatch, I do not know.
Cheers, Phil

[rabbitslayer]

On some of my rifles, the mounts cost more than the scopes.

WOW, Now I am intrigued.. Is that because the scopes are cheap or are the mounts REALLY REALLY expensive? If it's the latter, what justifies the cost?

Don't forget, initially I was comparing normal mounts for use on PCP's not specialised mounts for some hyper recoiling high powered rifle.

[rabbitslayer]

And you've totally missed the point again by referring to performance,
Do you test & compare your cheap no-name mounts with those of better brands ?.

Of course I refer to performance. What other reason would there be to buy or choose any piece of equipment over another if not based on it's performance?

And, no. I haven't tested different brand mounts because I've alway been happy with those I have. That's why I asked the question.

My point with the pellets is that we don't buy cheap purely because they're cheap, regardless of how they shoot

Wow... Really?... "we don't buy cheap purely because they're cheap regardless how they shoot"? - Says it all to me and I imagine this biased thinking is applied by most brand conscious consumers. Is this logic regularly applied when purchasing the expensive branded scope mount? I think it could well be so.

seems to be exactly what you are saying about the mounts buy cheap for the sake of it

Strange how some folk interpret things. Nope... I'm saying what's wrong with cheap if it does a good job and... Why buy expensive if cheap does the job? That was all. Your statement above suggests you seem to me saying buy expensive purely because it's expensive... utterly barmy! That's not a reason that's market conditioning.

I have tested different mounts because when fitted to a rimfire rifle those errors between POI at 20yds & POI at 150yds can be lateral movement of 2" or more.

Not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that through testing you have come across a mount (expensive?) that removes this lateral movement or that some (cheaper?) cause it?

I'm interested to know if throughout all your tests, whether you ever came across an expensive / branded mount that didn't perform well or caused any misalignment? or does the fact that a mount costing a considerable amount of dosh remove all probability of any manufacturing faults or imperfections?

Over to you..

[rabbitslayer]

You've asked the questions and got mixed answers.
Your choice to make now.
Good luck with whatever you decide. I'm off down the shed to throw some more cheap mounts in the bin.

It wasn't about me making a choice. I use the cheaper mounts and I'm doing OK with them. Why do some people think the OP has an issue with other members if they have a different view on things? I haven't got a problem with anyone who buys expensive mounts, why should I? it's none of my business what others choose to do but I wanted to know the reason/s behind their decision.

As for luck, well, I probably have been lucky not to have experienced any of the scenarios others have mentioned regarding cheaper mounts. That's not to say I won't encounter any issues in the future. If I do then I'll probably consider upping the outlay, until then I'll stick with what works for me.

Oh, and the cheap mounts in your shed.. I'll have 'em

[FPoole]

One thing to take into account is, some peoples idea of good enough may not be other folks idea of good enough. I can hit a soda can at 20 yards off a rest or, I can hit a nickel at 55 yards off my knee. The can shooter will never realize he has a mount problem, because his set up does what he wants it to. I've had 3 sets of mounts in the $20 range and all 3 broke, 2 in the clamp and 1 had the edge of the claw shear off. Had several SM mounts and only 1 broke, the adjustable elevation and windage one. They were, however, scope crimpers and not in line with the bore. I took a supposedly crooked TX200 and SM mount and replaced the mount with a BKL mount. The gun was suddenly shooting straight at all distances and not moving off to one side more as distance increased. I stick with BKL because I have 4 sets and all have been straight. They do have a problem with the occasional snapped screw or stripped thread, but that's an easy fix and a small price to pay for the added precision. Through the last 20 years I've settled on BKL and I am happy.

[Portzy]

I think Rabbits' that you and lots of others have to accept that some shooters will spend more money on accesories such as mounts for two or maybe three main reasons.

First up is the obvious one and it's because they simply have the means so they can and they do;

Second is that they have an eye for quality engineering and design with my personal caveat that, maybe, the reasons behind the design are possibly flawed and baseless in the real world;

Third, I would say, that it imparts a certain degree of confidence in the rifle/scope/mount combination leaving the shooter free to concentrate on his/her contribution to the shot.

Broadly speaking, and in all walks of life, we all fit into one of the above but I maintain that diminishing returns does come into play at some point.

I use Sportsmatch, as you know, and I have deduced that correct fitting of the scope using repeatable and gentle but adequate torque settings are more important to me than simply buying the next level up or the most expensive hardware.

So I just spend what I think is reasonable money, (and I don't have a lot btw), I install correctly, I have the utmost confidence in the combination, then I simply shoot at stuff and leave the obsessing to others and i'm sure there are 1000's just like me.

Forgot to add that when I shoot at stuff I tend to connect with it too, just in case you were wonderin'

[Phil Russell]

[QUOTE=Portzy;7543870]I think Rabbits' that you and lots of others have to accept that some shooters will spend more money on accesories such as mounts for two or maybe three main reasons.

First up is the obvious one and it's because they simply have the means so they can and they do;

Second is that they have an eye for quality engineering and design with my personal caveat that, maybe, the reasons behind the design are possibly flawed and baseless in the real world;

Third, I would say, that it imparts a certain degree of confidence in the rifle/scope/mount combination leaving the shooter free to concentrate on his/her contribution to the shot.

May I add a fourth: Peer pressure or a close relative. A person may be continuously told by others that something is better or keeps reading that it is better so begins to doubt his/her equipment to the point of deciding 'I must have that, it will improve my shooting'. So a change is made even though it may not have been necessary. But, and it is an important 'but', point three above can then kick in ....

Cheers, Phil

[rabbitslayer]

[QUOTE=Phil Russell;7543899]

I think Rabbits' that you and lots of others have to accept that some shooters will spend more money on accesories such as mounts for two or maybe three main reasons.

First up is the obvious one and it's because they simply have the means so they can and they do;

Second is that they have an eye for quality engineering and design with my personal caveat that, maybe, the reasons behind the design are possibly flawed and baseless in the real world;

Third, I would say, that it imparts a certain degree of confidence in the rifle/scope/mount combination leaving the shooter free to concentrate on his/her contribution to the shot.

May I add a fourth: Peer pressure or a close relative. A person may be continuously told by others that something is better or keeps reading that it is better so begins to doubt his/her equipment to the point of deciding 'I must have that, it will improve my shooting'. So a change is made even though it may not have been necessary. But, and it is an important 'but', point three above can then kick in ....

Cheers, Phil

Hi Phil,

I think you're pretty bang on especially points 3 & 4 which, from the off, was my underlying perception of the main reason. I can fully understand this happening as I've fallen victim to this myself on the odd occasion. It could even be the reason which led me to ask the initial question but anyway, even so, I can accept these points as a reasons leading to the purchase of an expensive set of mounts, whether justified or not but for others to suggest something is better simply because it costs more, just gets my goat and doesn't help anyone.

I have to say again though that I don't think bad of anyone who goes for the more expensive options, it's their choice and I respect that and in the end if it improves their performance and overall enjoyment of the sport all the better.

[angrybear]

Of course I refer to performance. What other reason would there be to buy or choose any piece of equipment over another if not based on it's performance?

That is my point & in my experience cheap mounts are crap so I refuse to use them.

Wow... Really?... "we don't buy cheap purely because they're cheap regardless how they shoot"? - Says it all to me and I imagine this biased thinking is applied by most brand conscious consumers. Is this logic regularly applied when purchasing the expensive branded scope mount? I think it could well be so.

Why is it biased? why would anyone buy cheap just because they're cheap even when knowing they shoot crap ?? every piece of advice re pellets is stick with known good quality brands JSB, AA, H&N, Bisley etc


Strange how some folk interpret things. Nope... I'm saying what's wrong with cheap if it does a good job and... Why buy expensive if cheap does the job? That was all. Your statement above suggests you seem to me saying buy expensive purely because it's expensive... utterly barmy! That's not a reason that's market conditioning.

No, I & others buy brands which we know to be good quality, rather than take a chance on some no-name rubbish just because no-name is cheap.

Not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that through testing you have come across a mount (expensive?) that removes this lateral movement or that some (cheaper?) cause it?

Both

I'm interested to know if throughout all your tests, whether you ever came across an expensive / branded mount that didn't perform well or caused any misalignment? or does the fact that a mount costing a considerable amount of dosh remove all probability of any manufacturing faults or imperfections?

Over to you..

I had unknown mounts come with a 2nd hand scope they were utter crap that I could see & feel did not align when fitted,
I then fitted some Sportsmatch reach fwd/back mounts but these had close to 2" lateral shift from 20yds to 150yds,
I then fitted Hawke match mounts these were better but still had almost an inch of lateral shift over the same range,
I then fitted BKL mounts which showed no lateral shift with increasing/decreasing range.
Since then I have only ever used BKL mounts on dovetails.

[RichardH]

The expensive Sportsmatch mounts are pretty good they actually make the mounts for the Accuracy International AW so if they are good enough for military snipers at 1000m they will probably be ok on an airgun

[rabbitslayer]

Have you ever seen a nice scope ruined by crimp marks on the tube, I've seen plenty, that's why you pay the extra, all mounts will hold your scope on the gun, but cheap ones are not properly aligned and will cause crimp marks on your expensive scope, if you can't afford new decent mounts, someone will sell you some second hand, I like to use sportsmatch on my guns and they are all second hand, atb Daz

Thanks Daz, but I would say that you can crimp a scope with any mount regardless of cost / brand. If you over tighten the top clamp / strap you'll crimp the tube (the ring halves are not supposed to touch).