Guys, with reference to a previous question I posted here, I have just ordered a new Sauer 202 Elegance.

I need some advice on appropriate scope mounts. Standard issue seems to be Appel mounts. These seem pretty complicated, very expensive, and look as if the mount the scope very high.

I have been offered Leupold QR mounts, these are half the price of the Appel, much simpler and seem to get the scope close to the barrel. Another option is Recknagel, but I cannot find a UK source for these.

Has anybody any experience of these systems? How do they compare? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.
Brian.

I do indeed think the standard Sauer mounts are EAWs - slightly modified in shape. I have always been happy with EAWs, they are excellent quality, although slightly pricey and, as most European mounts, tend to position scope a tad higher (as you noted). What scope are you intending to use?? If you get up into the 50 or 56mm objectives, the EAWs will fit well.

I have Leupold QR mounts on a .300 Win Mag. They are servicable, but don't compare to the EAWs in terms of quality. I always worry they come loose in the field, although it has never happened yet (don't like those pesky levers, maybe get the ones with screw attachments??).

Don't know Recknagel? Does Talley make a mount for the Sauer, they are good mounts and semi-reasonable. Can be ordered via the Web. Are you hooked on the mount being removeable??
- mike

Mike, the scope I will be mounting is a S&B 8x56. I am not at all bothered if the mounts are QR. My only thought on QR mounts was if I add another barrel in the future, another scope and QR mounts might be the best way to go.

My main concern here is to get the scope as close to the bore as possible, cost is a secondary concern.

BTW, I have ordered a 270win.

Brian.

EAW manufactures the Sauer mounts, the only difference between them being in contour shaping. My 202 carries a swingout EAW (I had 3 of them so far and never had any complaint. In terms of zero keeping, I rate them second only to the S�hler claw mount and much more reliable than the Leupold QR. I still own them all + a fixed EAW). Pricey all right but a work of art. Recknagel makes a swingout with a rotating release, about as high and as costly as the EAW. I've no personal experience with the Recknagel but they appear to be well made and reports are favourable.

With a 56 mm objective lens, I highly doubt that an EAW mount is going to be unnecessarily high, it may still not fit your budget, but I doubt you need to worry about the height. Not to attempt to talk you into getting an EAW mount, just to get the parameters set correctly for your choice.

I think you'll be happy with the Sauer, they are usually very accurate, good quality. They are not the smallest or lightest rifles in the world, but I find weight to be less of a problem in my hunting than some of our (US et al) friends. I guess it also depends a lot on what options you have for hunting. One thing is for certain, a bit of weight helps you no end in many shooting positions. I just had an interesting discussion about this subject with our very own AR member "1894". He gathers an incredible amount of experience with all the deer in his yearly cull, and very much shares my opinion on rifle weight, even though we both like carrying the lighter guns .

The .270 Win happens to be one of my favourite cartridges, good choice!
- mike

Andre, correct me if I'm wrong, the scope in your picture has a 42mm objective lens, correct?? Just so that Brian can form a picture in his mind of what a 56mm objective lens would look like. I have not seen an EAW with a 56mm scope, where I thought the EAW positioned the scope unnecessarily high. Do you agree??

Also, the Sauer has a Monte Carlo stock (at least most of them do) - helps you position your head fairly high for scope useage.

I share Andre's view of the EAW vs. the Leupold. It is kind of hard to compare the two as far as quality goes (unfortunately also as far as price goes ).

- mike

P.S. Brian, if you have not bought your scope yet, think VERY hard about getting one with a mounting rail (like Andre's) if you decide to go with the EAW. IMHO, the rail mount is better than rings, although rings are perfectly OK if you either have the scope already or decide to go with a Leupold mount. These days, the S&B come with a new rail type (hollow on the inside), their version of the Zeiss mounting rail. Best system available!

Claret,

I cannot coment on the QR Leopolds, but I have a couple of rifles with their standard non-QR mounts. I have found them to be very good indeed. And reasonably priced too.

Andre, thanks for the pic, you have largely answered my question regarding the quality and reliability of the EAW over the Leupold system. These factors, and the height were the primary concern. With the price of these rifles, the extra couple of hundred on mounts hardly matters.

Mike, the S & B 8x56 currently sits on top of the Tikka I am trading in for the Sauer. So that decision is already made.

I agree entirely with you on the rifle weight thing. I have a very light .22wmr, which is extremly accurate of the bench, but I struggle with it in the field. The idea of shooting more than a few "robust" 150gr handloads through a sub 3.5kg / 7 pound .270 leaves me pretty cold. Maybe we don't carry our rifles as far as the yanks. Certainly when you go to Scotland, the stalkers seems to insist on carrying the thing for you.

Thanks Brian.

I have a Sauer 202 and I am perfectly happy with Leupold QR, I alternate between Meopta 1,5-6x42 for woods hunting and Karl Zeiss 3-12x56 for the fields.

Regards,
/HerrBerg

Correct Mike, my scope is a Swarovski 1,6-6x42. The same mount would accept a 56 mm objective as is. I'm also a proponent of rail scopes (always square, no scope denting whatever the torque applied, practically unlimited eye relief, perfect anchoring via cross screws through the rail, etc.). The new concave rail presently offered by Zeiss, Swaro & S&B looks very interesting too. About scope height, this seems to bother our U.S. friends much more than us, Europeans. I believe it comes from our respective shooting conditions where the Americans mainly shoot from a rest at standing game, hence their stock crawling, while we drive hunt a lot and shoot at running game with head practically erect (personally, I've transfered this style to all my shooting -I shoot with head erect and both eyes open from the bench too- and have my guns stocked and/or scoped accordingly).

Claret,
The one thing I would recommend with the Apel/EAW swing-off mounts is to get them set up by a gunsmith that really understands them. My first set with a 202 were a complete nightmare, wandering zero etc. Almost brought me to tears! I subsequently found that internal adjustment is key. My second 202(and 1st one) was set up by a gunsmith who knows his stuff and the scope can be removed with a guaranteed return to zero. They are a work of art.
Good luck
Ed

Re. the ERA/Recknagel swingmounts you mentioned; I've been told by several gunmakers and gunsmiths that they are even more stable and precise then EAW. If you go to their website: www.recknagel.com and e-mail them, I'm sure they can direct you to a dealer near you. I e-mailed them a week ago requesting a cataloge, and recieved it in the mail already today! There's tons of other nice stuff that they make besides swinging (and non-swinging) scope mounts too.



Also, the Zeiss railmounts mentioned above are very good! I have had several in 1.5-6x42, and have one in 2.5-10x50 that should arrive in a week. They keep the scope stress free, and are easier to adjust forward and backwards if needed compaired to rings, without scratching the scopetube.



Erik D.