THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM OPTICS FORUM


Moderators: Canuck
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Find my mounts Please?
 Login/Join
 
One of Us
posted
D&T

Hey guys, I've got a project Eddystone sporter I'm finally getting around to. I have no idea what mounts it takes.

It's d&t'd for ~125" screws. Hole spacing ~.500"

Thanks,
Bryce
 
Posts: 188 | Location: Austin, TX | Registered: 12 July 2008Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of sambarman338
posted Hide Post
I'm inclined towards Leupold STD mounts (because of their windage adjustment) but can't see that they make any for Enfields. If no one has great advice, perhaps you could take this inquiry to the gunsmithing forum.
 
Posts: 5009 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 31 March 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sambarman338:
I'm inclined towards Leupold STD mounts (because of their windage adjustment) but can't see that they make any for Enfields. If no one has great advice, perhaps you could take this inquiry to the gunsmithing forum.


I have never had an issue with needing to use the windage screws on these mounts, but I have had issues with them (screws loose, etc). At the end of the day, I prefer something more substantial on the rear mount other than this design.


Don't Ever Book a Hunt with Jeff Blair
http://forums.accuratereloadin...821061151#2821061151

 
Posts: 7573 | Location: Arizona and off grid in CO | Registered: 28 July 2004Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of sambarman338
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
quote:
Originally posted by sambarman338:
I'm inclined towards Leupold STD mounts (because of their windage adjustment) but can't see that they make any for Enfields. If no one has great advice, perhaps you could take this inquiry to the gunsmithing forum.


I have never had an issue with needing to use the windage screws on these mounts, but I have had issues with them (screws loose, etc). At the end of the day, I prefer something more substantial on the rear mount other than this design.


Maybe the Redfield version was better. I had some on my .338 magnum for 33 years and they stayed put very well.
 
Posts: 5009 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 31 March 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
It is the front ring on the traditional Redfield-type turn-in mounts (also made by Leupold and Burris since the patent has long-since expired) which does all of the "work". The rear ring is NOT designed to hold against ANY fore-aft momentum;it is only for side-to-side positioning.

The rear screws should never be over-tightened. I've seen plenty of them broken before Redfield changed to a larger screw, and after the larger screw was introduced I've seen them with the heads bent due to over-tightening.

Their design, simple as it is, baffles too many amateurs who frequently fail to get the rear ring seated properly between the screw heads which hold it.

Properly installed, they will hold against as much or more recoil as any mount on the market.
 
Posts: 13239 | Location: Henly, TX, USA | Registered: 04 April 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Thanks guys. I wasn't that clear. I was wondering what mounts the screw spacing correlated to.

I think they're equivalent to the Marlin 336.

Thanks,
Bryce
 
Posts: 188 | Location: Austin, TX | Registered: 12 July 2008Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia