On a single, or for that matter double bridge, what is the usual method for mounting scope mounts?

The bridges are extra metal left so that the mounts of choice can be machined into them. There's a wide range of options from convetional claw mounts to EAW swing mounts to Talley/CZ or other groove-mounted rings. If you have the right gunsmith you can pretty much do anything you fancy.

As stated above, the square bridges allow for just about any method of mounting. The single bridge is intended for use with a barrel mounted front ring, usually around the objective.

So, just to make sure I understand, on the bridge itself, there is no separate mount, per se. The bridge is machined to fit whatever ring you use?

Traditionally, yes. It is just a lump of extra metal but a few makers like CZ go ahead and machine the bridges for proprietary rings.

Odd that I missed this before...it's a PEDESTAL.

If you are putting claw mounts on a double square bridge, the front bridge is usually dovetailed for the claw insert, and the rear bridge has the locking piece screwed on or soldered. After adjustments are made, the dovetailed piece is ground flat with the sides of the bridge (done the same way if the claw insert is dovetailed into a barrel ring).

If the rear scope ring has just a single large locking lug, the rear bridge is usually machined for it, and a suitable plunger inserted as a lock.

I understand that a double square bridge readily accepts Weaver bases as well.

.

quote:

Originally posted by KurtC:
I understand that a double square bridge readily accepts Weaver bases as well.

And that is bad how?

Weaver bases are the genesis of the US DOD MIL-STD-1913 accessory mounting system. When properly machined and installed the 1913 interface is as precise in returning to zero as any claw mount with MUCH less to go wrong and MUCH less expense.

More expensive =\= better.

The Weaver mounting system is a good one BUT it looks like crap when installed on a rifle with double square bridges. Money has nothing to do with it.

Terry

Got to agree with Alf on this one; you just don't put Weaver/Picatinny mounts on a Mauser square bridge sporter no matter how well they work. It's like putting a green and pink polkadot top on a pre-war Packard just because it was a bargain.

For me, form follows fuction. BTW, high quality MIL-STD-1913 rails, bases, and rings are not cheap either.

There are plenty of mounting systems that are "appropriate" and rock solid. The form follows function argument just doesn't fly.

Terry

Regardless of why people pay so much for these rifles, it simply isn't wise to reduce the value of a $6000-$10,000 rifle to $2000-$3000 in the name of saving $600 to $800 on a mounting system. That's my only point. If you own one and want to put Weaver rings on it that is your right and more power to you. It just makes poor financial sense. OTOH, every ruined collector's piece transfers some value to the remaining pieces so in some sense you will at least be enriching others.

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
There are plenty of mounting systems that are "appropriate" and rock solid. The form follows function argument just doesn't fly.

Terry

Only if you pay for my rifles.

If we are talking about your rifles, of coarse you can mount them any way you see fit. Just don't expect them to hold their resale value.

Terry

Improper scope mounting has a lot in common with obscenity. It's difficult to define, but I know it when I see it.

quote:

KurtC: Improper scope mounting has a lot in common with obscenity.

Good examples are the 21/22 Brnos we often see with multiple holes, dovetail cuts in the rings, altered bolt handles, etc. etc.

quote:

Originally posted by fla3006:

quote:

KurtC: Improper scope mounting has a lot in common with obscenity.

Good examples are the 21/22 Brnos we often see with multiple holes, dovetail cuts in the rings, altered bolt handles, etc. etc.

Gentlemen,
Obscenity is criminal and should be punished

Cheers
/JOHAN