Would like to hear what you guys think the pros/cons are of these two systems for a 416 Rigby DGR project and which one you would choose assuming they were both installed by a top end smith? Why?

Here is a link to the Smithson mounts;

http://smithson-gunmaker.com/mounts.htm

Bulldog, I think you'll be lucky to get anything other than hypothetical pontification because I think the number of people who own and have used both types of scope mounts are very few and far between.

Here's my pontification:
I own and hunt with a few rifles with claw mounts but have only played around with the Smithson mounts on a couple of rifles. Both systems are solid and have good return to battery when installed properly. In my opinion, the main difference between them is the amount of time it takes to remove and attach the scope. Getting the scope off is pretty much a wash, re-attaching the scope is much faster with the claw mounts - - especially if you are on the move.

A good test would be to load a 4+1 DGR equipped with clawmounts and shoot it as fast as you can at a target 50 yards away while removing and reattaching the scope between each shot. Try it again using the same rig with Smithson mounts. I think I could get all five shots off with the clawmount rifle in the time it would take me to get 2-3 shots off with the Smithson mount rifle. This little test doesn't say much about real world scenarios, but it would demonstrate the major difference between the two scope mounting systems.

I dont have a rifle with Smithson system, but have taken the time to get a feel of it on a few rifles.I find them more finicky to operate. Moreso when re-attaching,and more so again, with larger objective scope. With practice one would most likely become more profficient...But,in simple terms
IF I was after speed&ease of attach/removal on a serious DGR,
it would be CLAW system, hands down.

Hate to have to think about it but claw rings and their mounts are easier to switch should they break and they are also a system more gun smiths are familiar with.

Never even seen the Smithson before and even though I thought it looked nice and all, I can´t see that it will give me more than the old school claw rings/mounts.

Best regards Chris.

I'd agree that claw mounts are quicker, but they are usually scope dedicated and they are impossible to re-install if any debris gets in the recesses.

Smithson's are more condusive for use with an extra scope, or for changing scopes. They can be a problem with a large objective and a rear barrel sight as they slide straight forward/rearward. No problem with debris if the caps are in place, but that is an extra step and extra gear (although they will fit in some trap grip caps). They were mainly designed for, and most adaptable to GMA actions using the auxilliary aperture sight. If I were having a rifle built on a GMA action, it would definately have Smithson mounts.

I think they are equal in return to zero, longevity in terms of wear and standing up to recoil.
I've a fair bit of experience with both, in the shop, but not in hunting situations.

(BTW, the two photos of the Smithson on the left hand GMA action are compressed and look wierd. Joe is trying to get that rectified.)
Steve

Bulldog,
Had them both and my thoughts...
Claw mounts are not faster, they are both about the same. They are however just plain cool because they are vintage. Very strong and like the Smithsons they are not cheap...they are both made to the gun/action.

The Smithsons are reputed to repeat to zero better than anything else on the market...thats why i had Joe do me a pair...and because they are cool. I have not yet had the chance to shoot the gun...it just came back from the engraver.
The fit and workmanship is in short and simple terms, perfect.
The system works on a ball and detent alignment so it should not wear if hardened properly and should always return to the original position.

MY OPINION.....You should own at least one of each!

Seems to me that we are comparing apples to oranges. This is two different sytems. The Suhler claw mounts have been proven for over 100 years. I have no axe to grind with the Smithson system...lots of plungers, springs, ball detents, "t" slots...but it works well! I've installed both, still lean towards he Suhler system myself...realisically, the Leupold sytem (CHEAP) works well too, as does the Warne and Talley...The Suhler system is still the fastest for on again/off again..the difference between zero repeatibility would have to measured with sensitive instruments...the so called issue of sand, grit. dirt, etc in all these systems would have to have SOME effect, no doubt, but QD sytems, by their use in hunting scenarios for which they were intended..would not create much room for debate