I've seen/heard a lot of negatory opinions on this type of scope mount but am wondering EXACATEKLY what is the problem(s) besides it raises your eye level considerably?

Will they effect accuracy? If so, how?

No problem at all if the scope elevation doesn't bother you. The only thing you lose is some field of view because of looking through the tunnel under the scope.

Alternately, there used to be a set of scope rings with rifle sights on top so you could mount the scope lower. Don't remember who made them or if they are still around but I think they used to be in the Brownell's catalog. I'd think that might be more appropriate if the scope is to be the primary sight.

The problem I've heard people complain about most of the time is they get knocked off zero too easy.

Down here in the deep south there are a lot of hunters that still use "see-thru's" on Remington 742's off in the thick stuff. Of course with the way most of those rifles shoot it's hard to tell if they've been knocked off zero or not.


Terry

And hence the popularity of ten round magazines for them!

Nothing like skip line checkering, white line spacers and a bannana clip!

The way you sight one of those rifles in is you
1. Buy a 6 pack
2. Drink 6 pack
3. Set one of the empties out about 40ft from the truck.
4. shoot at the can off the hood of the truck.
5. If you hit the can before the bullets are gone you tilt your head back and yell like Howard Dean after he lost a Primary, "She's on boy's!"

And you're ready for hunt'n season

I love it down here

Terry

If preventing a proper cheekweld (which slows things down and introduces parallax errror by the bucketful) isn't enough of a problem to nix the see throughs:

The further from the bore line the greater the leverage recoil applies to the base screws, mount screws, and scope, which tends to loosen things up.

When a fella goes to retighten his screws he finds the see throughs are routinely made of alloy extrusions and the steel screws tend to strip threads.

For some reason see throughs are routinely used with ~$75 3-9x scopes which introduce another set of undesireable variables.

Ironically, these factors serve to reinforce the 50 year old notion that scopes just aren't reliable so a fella needs see through mounts to have access to his backup sights.

The fella who thinks see throughs are the solution really ought to try a low powered scope (in the $100-200 range) mounted as low on the action as possible in plain Jane Weaver bases and rings.

Can't disagree that the most common set up is as you describe but see-throughs come in all levels of quality up to claw mounts costing more than most hunter's rifles (after fitting).

Also agree that they don't belong on a 7 Mag but if one just has to have them, they have always managed to work on the moderate recoil guns. Its the $75 scope that has done more to reinforce the bad notion than the mounts.

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
Nothing like skip line checkering, white line spacers and a bannana clip!

The way you sight one of those rifles in is you
1. Buy a 6 pack
2. Drink 6 pack
3. Set one of the empties out about 40ft from the truck.
4. shoot at the can off the hood of the truck.
5. If you hit the can before the bullets are gone you tilt your head back and yell like Howard Dean after he lost a Primary, "She's on boy's!"

And you're ready for hunt'n season

I love it down here

Terry

I thought you was posed to set all 6 empty beer cans ON the hood of the truck and step back from the truck 40 paces and shoot at em off hand.


,

40 paces! You must be one of them long range shooters.

Terry

Here's my take on them.

First problem. They raise your scope too high. Not only does that make you have to raise your head up, it is a less durable set up. Raising the scope above the line of bore also changes the trajectory. The line of bore has to be at a steeper angle to the line of sight. It makes a bigger difference on a 30-30 than it would a 270, but it doesn't help either one.

Second problem. Try using the iron sights in a hurry (the main reason given for see-through rings) while looking through that little tunnel.

Most folks that ask me about see-through rings use the justification of "I couldn't find the deer because my scope was turned up to 9 power". The best solution is to use a good quality scope and keep the power ring turned low until you need more magnification. And don't choose a 6-18 power scope for your deer rifle if you hunt thick timber.

Call me crabby (I am).

I used them 25 years ago or so and thought my justification sound. I didn't have any good optic's nor did I know the advantage in owning them. Every scope I ever owned would fog up if it rained. Sometimes just an extreme tempreture change would cause it. For that reason alone the see-thru's made sense.

Terry

OK - sounds like magnum rifles and/or ruff use are a no no.

Light recoil/gentle use are OK. BTW:

"They raise your scope too high. Not only does that make you have to raise your head up, it is a less durable set up. Raising the scope above the line of bore also changes the trajectory. The line of bore has to be at a steeper angle to the line of sight. It makes a bigger difference on a 30-30 than it would a 270, but it doesn't help either one."

Doesn't effect trajectory - that is dependent on the load used. A higher scope mount extends the mid-range trajectory (yards/meters) - actually better for long range shooting. Parallax can/should be adjusted out.

Geez,
I had a set on a 375 HH, didn't have problem....

Must be lucky.

Roger QSL

quote:

Originally posted by sonofagun:

Doesn't effect trajectory - that is dependent on the load used. A higher scope mount extends the mid-range trajectory (yards/meters) - actually better for long range shooting. Parallax can/should be adjusted out.

Not trying to be argumentative, but changing mid-range trajectory is affecting trajectory.

I still contend that see-thru rings are a solution to a problem that can be handled better by other means. That said, if you like 'em, that's OK by me. (I know, nobody was staying up nights worrying about whether I approved or not.)

quote:

Not trying to be argumentative, but changing mid-range trajectory is affecting trajectory.

Been a while, but my statement is still correct. A higher scope mount will extend the distance to the mid-range trajectory. The actual trajectory (drop per yardage) can only be changed by a change in the load and NOT the scope mounting.

I cut my teeth on exterior ballistics.

Anyone else want to chime in?

Gee, it has been awhile.

Yes, just seems its semantics.

BTW, I suppose some of the negatory opinion of see thrus is the obvious fact that they don't add a lot to the appearance or value of a fine firearm.

Hmmm, maybe if they were engraved?

Everything depends on the design (and quality) of the individual set of rings.

Some of the cheap ones are too high, have oversized openings and poor mating surfaces.

European claw mounts, on the other hand, are about the same height with or w/o the openings. They are extremely sturdy when mounted properly, and the small openings are like looking thru a peep aperature.

The military is current using high quality see-thru's on M14 and M16 precision rifles. I think Badger Ordnance might be one of the suppliers.

oh, you mean "game saver" scope mounts..

more game is saved from being hit by them than any other sighting means, except perhaps the over the head/ sideways turned full auto approach

To elucidate further:

I asked here because I've sensed a general negative opinion towards them from gunsmiths in general and was wondering specifically if there was something I was missing about the geometry or materials of the mounts that would cause poorer accuracy (group size) than if the same gun used conventional rings and mounts. Assuming both mount systems were properly installed with no stress on the action or scope tube.

Obviously where accuracy is critical and expense is relatively open, then conventional, high quality mounts are the correct choice.

I've seen very few rifles with a scope in see-thru rings that looked like a well thought out plan. Not to say that there aren't any. They typically are a Remington 742 or a Marlin 336 with a 3-9, 4-12, 6-18 or some even more high power variable. The owner usually says something to the effect of "I gots to have them see-under rings 'cause I cain't see the deer up close in the timber where I hunt". Maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but not much.

My favorite was the two brothers that told me they were having trouble getting their deer rifle on target. During the conversation, I asked at what range they were shooting. One of them looked at the other and said "how far away is that old washing machine out back?". I damn near bit my tongue in two.

I'm not saying everyone with see-thru rings fits that description. But it does seem that most of them that fit the description have see-thru rings.

In regards to the cheap see through mounts, this demo always worked.
1. Clamp above equipped rifle in your padded vise.
2. Insert bore site collimater in muzzle and record readings.
3. Invite owner to look through scope and also note readings.
4. Using only ONE finger, push the objective from side to side and then up and down while asking owner to call out the variations on the grid.
5. Sell owner a good solid mount.

OK and how does it compare if you do the same with a "solid mount" - same scope and gun?

The variation COULD be in the scope and not the mount.

Anyone want to run a comprehensive test and report back here?

Could make an interesting article.

See through mounts on a rifle are about as good looking and useful as a potato on the end of a shotgun barrel. Those are two of a kind and rank right up there in the competition for worst idea ever on a hunting gun.

see thru mount are way to unstable
I can't believe that they still make them
even when my eyesight was good I would never consider using iron sights.... I figure if I take a shot I want it to be exact
besides perascopes belong on submarines

I know they are not very popular with most, but they do serve a purpose for some folks. I have a type of arthritis that has fused my spine from the waist to the top of my neck, preventing me from getting low on the stock and getting a cheek weld. I have ran them on 2 rifles for 20 yrs. with no problem with being flimsy or holding zero. I am not even sure of the brand, but I think they might be Weavers, some of you are way off base classifying them all the same. The ones I have are plenty rigid.
James

quote:

Ironically, these factors serve to reinforce the 50 year old notion that scopes just aren't reliable so a fella needs see through mounts to have access to his backup sights.

Uh...er...?? The notion is that when your $2500 Pipe-o-Teutonc glass is covered in:

1) water

2) dust

3) mud

cracked to shit from the fall off:

1) you atv

2) horse

3) tree stand

4) 30 foot cliff

You might still have useable sights.

If your see thru's are mounted in a tunnel they were made and mounted by someone without a clue.

They'll be waaay faster in the aquisition department than any 1-5x scope (talk about looking through a tunnel) turned down to 1x (especially since you'll likely have big plastic caps covering the lenses when speed is important...

down here we have a saying that goes " friends dont let friends buy see-through scope rings ".

Get the right scope and mounts for the job and forget about those dorky tunnel thingies that give you neck pain and poor accuracy.

Poor accuracy? Once again I must ask:

I asked here because I've sensed a general negative opinion towards them from gunsmiths in general and was wondering specifically if there was something I was missing about the geometry or materials of the mounts that would cause poorer accuracy (group size) than if the same gun used conventional rings and mounts?

Assuming both mount systems were properly installed with no stress on the action or scope tube and all testing was done in a controlled manner from a solid bench.

A quick thought about the accuracy issue.

If there were no forces or issues with the mounts besides them being ugly , as there may not be in bench shooting, (which would eliminate the need for the mounts in the first place), you still are not able to get a cheekweld, which introduces your head movement into the already complex set of issues surrounding accurate shooting.

Usually we fight to eliminate every variable we can to make for a more stable shooting platform. Adding a variable is never desirable and can never lead to the same or better accuracy. Of course these are just my thoughts as the ugly comment is but I think they make sense.

The primary negative associated with the tunnel see through rings is it is an indicator of the lack of knowledge and experience the user has with scopes.
It is common to find users that want to put their eye against the scope like a binocular or they take 10 minutes to find an object in the field of view because they shoot once a year. These shooters want the tunnel mounts because they really can't use a scope properly.

There are several ways to deal with a scope issue but you may not experience one in your life time while hunting if you use quality scopes and mounts.

1. Remove the scope and use the iron sights in the normal fashion.
2. Carry a back up scope.
3. Carry a back up rifle.

Lack of skill with a scope is no excuse for tunnel mounts. Understand what the problem really is and fix it.

your kidding, right?