Naphtali -- is there a reason you don't want a tubular red dot? They are simple to mount on the Ruger........

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
Naphtali -- is there a reason you don't want a tubular red dot? They are simple to mount on the Ruger........

1. Esthetics. A large tube atop the Super Redhawk is, to use computer-speak, inelegant. This has zero to do with how well anything functions.

2. Easier, more reliable mounting. Petite optic puts little strain on mounting system.
***
Clearly, what impels me toward the less obtrusive sight class is esthetics. Since my first experience with a telescopic sight on a Python Hunter was not rewarding, I haven't cared for a device that resembles Space Shuttle on its launching pad.
***
The immediate downside to these smaller sights are: warranty; dot size; and that manufacturers and distributors will not respond to specific queries. Avoiding direct answers, fudging answers, not responding at all is off-putting, as though there is something to hide.

My fallback is an Ultradot.

Hardly the space shuttle, but if you don't like it, you don't like it......

For me it is a tool and no Super Redhawk will ever win a beauty contest (except for Redhawk1's Streethawk!), but there is beauty in their pure functionality.......

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:


Hardly the space shuttle, but if you don't like it, you don't like it......

For me it is a tool and no Super Redhawk will ever win a beauty contest (except for Redhawk1's Streethawk!), but there is beauty in their pure functionality.......

Did somebody say space shuttle and spacey looking things? Maybe even plastic?

Beam me up tom.........

Since I am getting no cooperation from Pride Fowler, it's fallback time. No, I'm not complaining. And I believe I've identified what makes me uncomfortable about tube-like red dot devices.
***
Jack Weigand makes two mounts for Ruger's Super Redhawk, SRH Plus (left) and SRH 454 (right). He informs me that to withstand recoil stress of .480 Ruger, I must use SRH 454.

I am not enthusiastic about aluminum mounts and rings. Does anyone manufacture a mount similar to SRH 454 on the right, with its three recoil anchor points, from steel, stainless steel, or titanium?
***
I've concluded what bothers me about mounting an Ultradot has a great deal to do with the sight's distance above the mount. Who manufactures low steel 30 mm rings with four or six screws per ring?

Naphtali -- I have the medium rings and I don't know who if anyone makes a lower ring. I wouldn't mind lower rings than the ones I have, but it shoots great, so I'm not going to worry about it. Do you have to use a rail-type mount? Are you concerned about rings and the affects of recoil?

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
Do you have to use a rail-type mount? Are you concerned about rings and the affects of recoil?

I'm a belt-and-suspenders kind've guy. I want to avoid having mount loosen or beat-up the frame. I want to make rings-sight junction as secure as I can. When investigating red dot sights on the SRH, I discovered several shooters use double rings sets -- that is, two on each side of the sight's adjustments.

If there are different methods to achieve the result I seek, I'm ready to listen. I become anxious when I don't know enough to make an intelligent decision. And I'd like to get the show on the road. I have 1000 Starline cases on the way.

I understand your concerns. Mine hasn't been on the revolver very long, so time will tell. But, if there is a gun that will test this mounting system it is my .475 Linebaugh! I will keep you posted, but so far so good. I plan on using a little loctite on the mounts (blue, not red!)........

Keep us posted!

You do NOT need more then 2 rings on the Ultra Dot because it is light and strong. A heavy scope or one with a soft tube like a Burris does need more. I have a Burris scope that needs 10 rings! I use Warne rings on the BFR .475 and nothing has moved in thousands of heavy loads.I use the rings that came with the Ultra Dot on my 45-70 BFR without a problem.
The Weigand base is a super base and works like a charm so you can reduce the scope heighth and spread the rings. Most Ruger type rings are high, heavy and close together.
Unless you have a heavy scope, overkill is not needed. Red dot construction must be considered but I don't trust the construction of the heads up display things until you spend as much as the gun cost.
Is appearance more important then function? For a back up gun, open sights are good enough, you are not going to see anything anyway if a griz is on top of you with blood in his eyes, just point and shoot as fast as you can.
Besides all of that, the .480 recoil is not that bad.
Ask me to list all of the crap I have blown to pieces on my lowly .44 and you will see why I choose scopes and red dots that I know will hold up. Break one, send it back and tell me if you want to put the replacement back on your gun!!!!! You have more time and postage money then I have. I want something that does not fail when hunting or shooting cans.
Some of those things are only good on a wall hanger.
I get a kick out of those that say it "Holds up well on my .45 acp." If that is recoil, those guys should try shooting a REAL gun.

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:

Red dot construction must be considered but I don't trust the construction of the heads up display things until you spend as much as the gun cost.

I've broken a bunch of the low and mid-level holo sights you can get from Midway and Brownells. A lot of them are chinese made crap. As you said, the good ones cost as much as the guns do, or at least near as much, but they are neat. I've got a cheap BSA that's held up OK but it's on a 10/22.

quote:

Originally posted by Naphtali:

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
Do you have to use a rail-type mount? Are you concerned about rings and the affects of recoil?

I'm a belt-and-suspenders kind've guy. I want to avoid having mount loosen or beat-up the frame. I want to make rings-sight junction as secure as I can. When investigating red dot sights on the SRH, I discovered several shooters use double rings sets -- that is, two on each side of the sight's adjustments.

If there are different methods to achieve the result I seek, I'm ready to listen. I become anxious when I don't know enough to make an intelligent decision. And I'd like to get the show on the road. I have 1000 Starline cases on the way.

I have never used more than 2 rings on any scope's or red-dot's I have mounted on a handgun.
I have a Bushnell 2x6x32 scope on my 460 Mag, scope has never moved or came loose. I have Ultra-dots on my BFR 45-70 and 500 Mag and only use 2 rings. I have thousands of rounds fired in my 460 Mag and 500 Mag.

Check out Warne rings, if you want steel rings.

[/Quote] By Naphtali
I'm a belt-and-suspenders kind've guy. I want to avoid having mount loosen or beat-up the frame. I want to make rings-sight junction as secure as I can. When investigating red dot sights on the SRH, I discovered several shooters use double rings sets -- that is, two on each side of the sight's adjustments.

If there are different methods to achieve the result I seek, I'm ready to listen. I become anxious when I don't know enough to make an intelligent decision. And I'd like to get the show on the road. I have 1000 Starline cases on the way. [/QUOTE]

The most secure way to achieve the best attachment of an optical sight is to eliminate the base with the extra screws to attach it to the frame and just attach the rings dirrectly to the frame.. The way that Whitworth attached his is for sure and for certain the best way to attach an optic sight to a revolver. Attaching directly to the frame does not induce more stress to the frame as you have suggested.. The rail is also attached to the frame.???

jwp475, is 100% correct.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475: The most secure way to achieve the best attachment of an optical sight is to eliminate the base with the extra screws to attach it to the frame and just attach the rings dirrectly to the frame.. The way that Whitworth attached his is for sure and for certain the best way to attach an optic sight to a revolver. Attaching directly to the frame does not induce more stress to the frame as you have suggested.. The rail is also attached to the frame.???

In the universe of rings mounting directly to SRH's top strap, who manufactures low rings? In your collective opinion, are rings having more than one ring clamping screw per hemisphere worthwhile? And what about nuances such as wider surface area on rings, tacking ring to optic barrel with epoxy (or other secondary slippage retardant)?

If you need anything in the rings to prevent slippages, then powdered rosin is prefered. What difference does it make wether or not the rings are low? with a Handgun there is no check weld to worry about...

Regarding Ultradot Matchdot and Four, those red dot models having user selectable dot size, how do you zero the sight? Does dot size grows from its center? If it does, do you zero with a center hold, or with a six o'clock hold, or other?

A center hold I anticipate would translate to quicker target acquisition. But I do not know what would be the difference in point of impact when altering dot size from, for example, 8 MOA to 2 MOA at 80 meters.

Using a round point of aim, how difficult is six o'clock hold when using larger, 8 or 12 MOA, dot size having large top surface?
***
Regarding rings height, I prefer esthetically less garish to more. Closer to top strap, the sight would be slightly easier and quicker to acquire, theoretically a less stressful [lever] on mount assembly, and needful of less holster bulk. But my reason is really esthetic. Lower sight mounting looks more graceful, more pleasing to the eye. So if low mounting is an available option, that's what I prefer.

Naphtali -- Ruger offers two different height in 30mm -- a medium and high. I have yet to see a lower set of rings -- that's not saying they don't exist, as they probably do. You may want to talk to the manufacturer. Mine are the mediums.

So far I have had no slippage, and mine with full-house loads kicks considerably harder than a .480 (my SRH used to be a .480, so I speak with some authority).

My Ultradot doesn't have adjustable dot size as the match dot does, but you sight it like you would a scope with a center hold. Just put the dot on the target and squeeze. Target acquisition is quite quick. Sighting in is easy as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth: Ruger offers two different height in 30mm -- a medium and high. I have yet to see a lower set of rings -- that's not saying they don't exist, as they probably do. You may want to talk to the manufacturer. Mine are the mediums.

My Ultradot doesn't have adjustable dot size as the match dot does, but you sight it like you would a scope with a center hold. Just put the dot on the target and squeeze. Target acquisition is quite quick. Sighting in is easy as well.

Yup, Ruger does not offer low ring mounting. What about third parties -- low rings?? Sufficiently strong rings?? Apparently a Weaver/Picatinny-type base allows low mounting. As I have been persuaded, simpler mounting is better. So I revert to what about third parties?

Ultradot's single size sights use 4 MOA dots. My limited tryout of red dot sights showed 4 MOA difficult to acquire; 6 MOA was a good single-size choice, and 8 MOA was very quick to use.

In the universe of petite red dot sights, Rapid Reticle at 5 MOA and Docter Red Dot at 7 MOA are the closest matches. In the tubular Ultradot models, I must look to the selectable dot size models although I may never use the option. But if I would, I would probably use small dot to zero and larger dot to hunt. To verify what happens to point of aim, I'll need to try it and see.

You find more reasons to not do , than to do...

With my hunting rigs I prefer to keep things simple. I can honestly say that I would limit my shots on an animal to around 100 yards and, this Utradot is fine for that.

I would contact the manufacturer -- www.ultradotwest.com and see what they recomend for rings. Naphtali -- good luck and keep us posted!

I bet it won't be long before integral Weaver/Picatinny-type bases machined into the firearm will become a normalish option on revolvers just like they've become on most other sorts of guns.

quote:

Originally posted by Naphtali:
Regarding Ultradot Matchdot and Four, those red dot models having user selectable dot size, how do you zero the sight? Does dot size grows from its center? If it does, do you zero with a center hold, or with a six o'clock hold, or other?

A center hold I anticipate would translate to quicker target acquisition. But I do not know what would be the difference in point of impact when altering dot size from, for example, 8 MOA to 2 MOA at 80 meters.

Using a round point of aim, how difficult is six o'clock hold when using larger, 8 or 12 MOA, dot size having large top surface?
***
Regarding rings height, I prefer esthetically less garish to more. Closer to top strap, the sight would be slightly easier and quicker to acquire, theoretically a less stressful [lever] on mount assembly, and needful of less holster bulk. But my reason is really esthetic. Lower sight mounting looks more graceful, more pleasing to the eye. So if low mounting is an available option, that's what I prefer.

I use the 6 o'clock aim. I put the top of the red dot on the bottom of my dot on the target. The dot size does not change my point of impact at all. When shooting game, I put the dot where I want the bullet to go.
If you use the rings provided by Ruger or if you order 30 MM rings from Ruger you will not need anything to keep the scope from moving. Also Ruger has different height rings, low, med and high. http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FASRFACat?facode=29&type=Revolver

how do you guys hunt with these things? Do you leave them turned on all day and just carry extra batterys. I dont think id like to have to deal with turning on a sight at the last minute in case things happened quickly and dont think id want to rely on batterys for a sight on a gun i was using for a once in a lifetime hunt. You never know how long even new ones have been sitting on a shelf and when there going to give up the ghost. I think if i was going to go with a dot sight id be looking at one of the trinium ones that stays on all the time and lasts for years. I wouldnt want to trust the reliability of anything battery powered. Id be so paranoid that id be constantly turing it on and off to check it or if left on constantly checking to see if it was still on. Im not a fan of scoped handguns anymore but id think that a lighted crosshair convetional scope or one of the bushnell firefly deals would be a much more reliable and user freindly deal.

Lloyd Smale, I have been hunting with my handguns with red-dots on them for many many years now. I have never had a battery stop working for me in all the years I have hunted. I do however carry an extra battery with me.

How I use the red-dot depends on my hunting situation, in my deer stand where I can see something coming from a distance I leave the red-dot off and turn it on when I see something. It is not any slower than switching the safety on or off a rifle before a shot. If am stalking, I keep the red-dot on, and I also keep it on when I am walking through the woods.

But like I said, I don't find it any different or difficult turning it on as I do switching a safety off my rifle. Practicing this is also key. I have one red-dot that has had the same battery in it for the last 3 years and it works every time. If you are really concerned, put a fresh battery in dally and use them old batteries when shooting at the range.

quote:

Originally posted by Lloyd Smale:
how do you guys hunt with these things? Do you leave them turned on all day and just carry extra batterys.

Ultradot's specifications sheet shows up to 4000 hours ON. Regardless which red dot sight I obtain, my first things to do are: zero the SRH; and leave sight ON at power I will use at dawn and dusk until battery goes heels down. I suspect the conclusion will be that the battery can be left ON for the entire hunting season at hunting power, that the correct procedure is to change batteries when doing final shooting before hunting season. I'll know for sure after testing.

Aimpoint apparently uses more sophisticated battery management. Their red dot sights approximating the weight of Ultradot's tubular sights have battery lives of 10K and 50K hours at setting 7 of 10.

Hope this helps.

There appears to be no provision to edit posts, so here is a follow-up. Ruger has available rings-heights as follows: LOW one-inch rings; medium one-inch rings in offset configuration; and 30 mm medium rings. When would Ruger's offset rings be useful? Why?
***
I am uncertain why no 30 mm low rings are available. Which brings me to questions I should have asked myself a week ago:
-- What is the difference in field of view between 25.4 mm Ultradot and 30 mm?

-- Is this difference significant?
***
Let's assume the differences are significant. Is there any reason why Ruger's low one-inch rings cannot be opened to accept, while safely mounting, a 30 mm Ultradot? This procedure would most likely be part of truing inside diameter of rings.

From Ruger's web site:

I have both the 1 inch and 30mm Ultra-dots. The advantage I see with the 30mm is the quickness I find the red-dot over the 1 inch tube. I have a better view also when I look through the 30mm over the 1 inch tube.

My advice to you is, find someone or a few guys with different red-dots on there handguns and look at them. You can ask 1000 questions, but only actually seeing them for yourself will you see how they really work.

I think you are thinking way to much on this, it is not as complicated as you are making it out to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
I have both the 1 inch and 30mm Ultra-dots. The advantage I see with the 30mm is the quickness I find the red-dot over the 1 inch tube. I have a better view also when I look through the 30mm over the 1 inch tube.

My advice to you is, find someone or a few guys with different red-dots on there handguns and look at them. You can ask 1000 questions, but only actually seeing them for yourself will you see how they really work.

I think you are thinking way to much on this, it is not as complicated as you are making it out to be.

You answered my concern -- 30 mm is superior for hunting use to 25.4 mm. Thanks.

I live 75 yards from state forest, and about 1.5 miles from Lolo National Forest. Nobody -- I mean nobody -- has red dot sights where I live. When I drove to Missoula, the only red dot sight I could find was a Nikon Monarch VSD, weighing about half-a-pound. I also viewed a Trijicon reflex sight of about the same weight that had amber Tritium illumination and triangular aiming device. The aiming device was a delight to use, but the rest of the sight . . .
***
So I must do buying research remotely. I believe we have filtered available sights to where no choice will be a poor one. Final steps are to assure the sight stays blandly and uneventfully attached to the SRH, and to have this achieved by as graceful a mounting system as is available.
***
Regarding conversion of Ruger's low one-inch rings to 30 mm, conversion would require removal of 2.3 mm (.0906 inch) from ID of rings. While this is not much metal, this opens a new bag of cats: Do Ruger rings have sufficient mass to allow this?

Truing/lapping in rings to assure 100 percent bearing of rings with sight tube is, for me, a cost of doing business. Removing 2.3 mm is much more than lapping, though.

I think you would be better off with the medium 30mm rings from Ruger.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
I think you would be better off with the medium 30mm rings from Ruger.

I have to agree. Keep it simple. They are available and they work fine. I do not think you will be unhappy with the medium 30 mm rings from Ruger. I believe the mediums are negligably higher than the low rings anyhow.

Ruger never gets it's head out of the sand to make those things we need.
As far as the extension ring, some red dots will not fit between the rings. They also allow a scope to be moved back and forth for the best eye relief. Why they don't offer low 30mm and 30mm extension rings is beyond me.
I have never left my red dot on when hunting. It is second nature to just turn it on when needed. Some of my batteries are 5 years old. I even turn it off between targets.

Naphtali - if weight is a concern, I believe the Ultradot 30 weighs 4.5 ounces......maybe bfrshooter can confirm this........

Progress Report
I called Pride Fowler about a week ago to query about warranty and mounting on Super Redhawk. "John," the person responsible for talking with me about these things was out of the office. The person who answered the telephone took my name & telephone number plus E-mail address. Nothing!!

I have concluded Pride Fowler is not a company with which I would do business.
***
Problem Partly Solved
I solved part of the problem. I bought two Ultradot L/Ts. They should arrive within the week.

Part of the problem remains. What is the most durable and secure mount for the L/T to Super Redhawk .480 Ruger? I am nearly certain whatever mount base accompany the L/Ts will not mount on a Super Redhawk. I asked Larry Carter several weeks ago. He did not respond.

I'm very satisfied with my Ultradot Matchdot and I would like to get an Ultradot L/T for my Freedom Arms .454 Casull.

Anyone has experience with the L/T version ?

Does it show any problem with the recoil ?

I have a Burris Fast Fire that I had mounted on my Kimber 10mm. It held up to recoil with no problems. I was thinking about mounting it to my .480 and see how I like it on there.

I have the Trijicon RMR, MSO4. It weighs .5 OZ very small and compact on my 4" S&W 500. So far so good.

Its my understanding thet there is only one warranty stn for UD in the U.S and in speaking w/him, queried the L/T holosight. His response was indoor range only as it is an open system subject to contaminents. Asked about warranty experience and was told most were from lense/screen popped out. Matching damage/distortion to the hw loop would indicate droppage/abuse and fall short of warranty standards ~ and he pointed out that as also a UD distributor he would not stock/sell the L/T. The red dot, or closed tube system is much better but is a larger technology as been said

That was the good days, things have changed w/growth & changes of personel. After a week of no status of my order, and another w/o them returning calls, we did finally connect and was informed that they were too busy to follow-up on a problem w/my order. Now that is TOO busy so I've changed distributors ~ hope I never need warranty service from them

To my knowlege warne is the only one making low 30mm rings.For the SRH, that'd require Weigand bases which negates the benefits of low rings. The 1" UD is good on the SRH but the 30mm is much better ~ Buzzards Luck!

It seems that manf'rs see 30mm as for large objective rifle scope rather than straight tube Red Dots.

quote:

Originally posted by odoh: For the SRH, that'd require Weigand bases which negates the benefits of low rings. The 1" UD is good on the SRH but the 30mm is much better ~ Buzzards Luck!

It seems that manf'rs see 30mm as for large objective rifle scope rather than straight tube Red Dots.

No need for a weigand base when Ruger's rings mount directly to the frame.

If one likes mediums or higher. Sounded like he was wanting something lower, closer to the barrel than whats been depicted. I've been down this road already. The statement pertained to my only known source of 'Low' 30mm rings (warnes). Just recalled that they do have 30mm rings for the M-77 that'll work on the SRH, but the 'bite' onto the frame is very very shallow placing all the clamping forces into a smaller area potentially buggering up the finish....again, Buzzards Luck ~


Just noticed this thread is 2yrs old???