Author Topic: See Thru scope mounts..?? (Read 1461 times)

rand4c · « **on:** February 14, 2008, 03:59:50 AM »

Hi all,
I'm about to buy scope mounts for my Contender pistol and was wondering if many of you deer hunters use see thru mounts..I hunt in the north east and shots are seldom over 100 yards and more likely to be 25--30 yards..I have a 2-7 scope but was thinking that see thru mounts would work well for a close shot and also avoid having to deal with a hammer extension.

Thoughts ??..Thanks , Randy

skb2706 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 14, 2008, 04:29:49 AM »

Personally I hate them. They position your head way up off the stock regardless of stock design. Makes for poor shooting position. Sighting in a rifle with see thru rings is always a PITA because typically they are of poor quality anyway and rarely hold a scope well.

If it were me I 'd mount that 2x7 scope in a decent set of rings, set the scope on 2x and leave it.

Lone Star · « **Reply #2 on:** February 14, 2008, 05:39:35 AM »

Since this is a handgun forum, head position on the comb is not an issue - still I prefer the scope to be mounted as low as possible. It keeps the gun compact and there is less leverage to bend the mount if you get rough with the handgun. I've dropped deer at under five yards with a 4X scope - you don't need iron sights if you shoot with both eyes open. I use a Weaver base and 2 or 3 Leupold 'Rifleman' vertically-split rings. Never had a scope move, solid and safe. I don't use a hammer extension, just the side of my thumb.

.

Keith L · « **Reply #3 on:** February 14, 2008, 06:11:42 AM »

If there is a place for the see thru mounts (and I doubt that there really is) it may be on a handgun. On a rifle they are the worst of both worlds. On a handgun you don't have a cheek weld, but the center of the scope is still way off of the barrel.

I don't have hammer extensions on my scoped Contenders and don't have a problem.

Hopalong7 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 15, 2008, 12:51:43 AM »

Unless you're using a 16" or longer barrel, there is nowhere to mount the rear sight. The scope mount covers it up. I do have a 22lr and a 22M S-16 set up with see thru's and a rifle scope for squirrel and turkey hunting. They do work pretty good. I would not consider such set-up on a kicker. E.A. Brown does market a scope mount (Weaver style) with a peep on the rear of it, so that would make it do-able on other barrels as well. I might point also that on mine, the sights are just visible above the scope base. GOOD SHOOTIN', Walt

Davemuzz · « **Reply #5 on:** February 15, 2008, 01:23:22 AM »

Yeah.....see thru mounts are worthless on a longgun. On a handgun, maybe....but as an alternative, you may want to think of buying quick release rings for your scope. Then, if you are in a place where heavy brush doesn't make your scope work all that well, you can remove your scope in a few seconds and you have use of your open sights. I would go for that option before I spend any money on see thru's.

FWIW

Dave

Hopalong7 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 15, 2008, 01:28:25 AM »

I'll have to admit that the only time I've used mine was just plinkin' and then just to see if I really could use'm....never have tried'm in the field. Walt

Of course, I'm referring to the open sights.

Davemuzz · « **Reply #7 on:** February 15, 2008, 03:39:02 AM »

Quote from: Lone Star on February 14, 2008, 05:39:35 AM

I've dropped deer at under five yards with a 4X scope -

Lone Star....just curious, but how many times did you have to whack 'em in the head with that scope??

Oh...and did Leupold still honor their lifetime warranty when you sent it back with that broken glass and all that deer hair 'n stuff inside it??

Dave

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #8 on:** February 15, 2008, 03:42:15 AM »

If you need see thru. rings on a handgun , you might consider point shooting ! did ya wake up and the critter was just there ?

Keith L · « **Reply #9 on:** February 15, 2008, 03:42:49 AM »

"Lone Star....just curious, but how many times did you have to whack 'em in the head with that scope??"

Kinda reminds me of the time the guard at work hit a deer with one of the company cars and dispatched it with the fire extinguisher from the trunk...

Davemuzz · « **Reply #10 on:** February 15, 2008, 06:15:09 AM »

did ya wake up and the critter was just there ?.......Hey Shootall.....is that you in the woods where I go hunting? 'Cause that wake up thing happens to me....more than I care to admitt!!!

Dave

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #11 on:** February 15, 2008, 07:08:20 AM »

I have killed deer and turkey that way and missed alot more !
when my son was young he once ask why i didn't shoot the buck that went by my stand ( he could see from his ) and i i said wasn't big enough !
later we are at a store with bucks mounted on display he shows me a nice one and said is that big enough , cause the one you passed up was bigger !
OH WELL !
snoring has to be the best call in the woods !

jhalcott · « **Reply #12 on:** February 15, 2008, 12:41:11 PM »

Some body once made a Sight Over Scope that worked quite well.It was a set of rings ,the top half were front and rear iron sights. i got a set and tried them on a rifle. They worked pretty well. When I swapped the scope for a big objective bell one I found the sights were to low to be very effective.

Lone Star · « **Reply #13 on:** February 15, 2008, 01:32:04 PM »

Quote

Lone Star....just curious, but how many times did you have to whack 'em in the head with that scope??

This is not an uncommon occurrence when calling deer in with a rabbit call - assuming the hunter can camouflage himself a little. There is no problem using a .300 Savage at real point blank range to break a neck as long as you keep both eyes open. I'm surprised that so many "experienced" handgun hunters seem to have trouble with this concept.....

.

Davemuzz · « **Reply #14 on:** February 15, 2008, 03:52:45 PM »

Quote from: Lone Star on February 15, 2008, 01:32:04 PM

Quote
Lone Star....just curious, but how many times did you have to whack 'em in the head with that scope??
This is not an uncommon occurrence when calling deer in with a rabbit call - assuming the hunter can camouflage himself a little. There is no problem using a .300 Savage at real point blank range to break a neck as long as you keep both eyes open. I'm surprised that so many "experienced" handgun hunters seem to have trouble with this concept.....

.

Aw...now......we was just joshin with ya!!! (Still curious about that Leupold warranty though)

Dave

Grumulkin · « **Reply #15 on:** February 16, 2008, 01:40:20 AM »

OK, here is the voice of dissension.

There is nothing wrong with see through scope mounts except for personal prejudice. I have them on 2 Encore barrels, I don't find the scope to be too high and they are useful as in the case of a ground hog heading for its hole at top speed I shot at around 6 feet with my 30/06. In my opinion, the thing that looks dumb is a scope permanently mounted on an Encore barrel with the front sight still in place and useless. The bad news is that for Encore handgun barrels, the rear sight has to be removed to mount a scope unlike rifle barrels.

Another scope mounting solution that permits use of iron sights and lets one mount the scope low, is to use Warne Weaver style bases with quick detach rings (the scope can be removed in a few seconds). This also allows one to switch scope between barrels; a useful feature when Encore & Contender barrels have been fruitful & multiplied (how does that happen?).

Keith L · « **Reply #16 on:** February 16, 2008, 02:42:43 AM »

I got tired of people coming back to me after I installed them complaining about not being able to shoot good groups with their guns. I have yet to see mounts where you can get down far enough to see the iron sights and still have a reliable cheek weld so you get the same sight picture each time with the scope. Parallax difference at any real range moves the point of impact all over the target. And in hunting situations often shooters don't get shots that allow them to truly align the sight picture before taking the shot. Often that results in missed or lost game. And the mounts restrict the view with the iron sights. I don't find this as much of a problem as shooters with their head in the air looking through the scope, but it is a disadvantage just the same.

If your shooting allows for these disadvantages, then by all means use see thru mounts.

FWIW, I haven't had great luck with the quick release mounts either. While they can get back to within an inch or so of zero, and that may be good enough for some, I like to know I can get closer than that. No reason to have a gun that shoots moa and handicap it with a sight system that won't allow that to happen.

Lone Star · « **Reply #17 on:** February 16, 2008, 07:41:29 AM »

Quote

Aw...now......we was just joshin with ya!!! (Still curious about that Leupold warranty though)

I have only sent one Leupold scope back for service. I bought it in 1975, one of the first of the 2X LER scopes. Used it for about ten years on a .30 Herrett, .35 Remington, .223, a few more. Once when I was switching it from one barrel to another I noticed that it had a slight rattle - but the scope had been working perfectly. I sent it back to Leupold and they sent me a brand new 2X LER! They had made some design changes to improve the scope's ability to withstand heavy recoil - the scope is still going great today. BTW I used 4X Leupolds on the called-in deer - on Kodiak Island. Yes, occasionally a brownie would come by...

I wonder why the big discussion on 'cheek weld' in a handgun forum?

.

Davemuzz · « **Reply #18 on:** February 16, 2008, 07:47:44 AM »

Quote from: Lone Star on February 16, 2008, 07:41:29 AM

I wonder why the big discussion on 'cheek weld' in a handgun forum?

.

LS....That's a darn good question! I dunno....maybe really BIG CHEEKS?

PS--I'm thinkin you may have given me a clue as to why Leupold just gave you a new scope. I guess they figured anyone who sent back a scope full of deer hair and brownie hair...well, they better not mess with. Just easier to send a new scope than to have the guy show up at their service desk one morning. $:-\$

Dave

Keith L · « **Reply #19 on:** February 16, 2008, 08:52:49 AM »

Quote from: Lone Star on February 16, 2008, 07:41:29 AM

Quote

I wonder why the big discussion on 'cheek weld' in a handgun forum?

.

In response to a poster discussing how much he liked see thru rings on his Encore rifle barrels.

pab · « **Reply #20 on:** February 18, 2008, 06:36:01 AM »

I had a 16'' 35 Rem barrel I wanted to mount as a pistol, and the only scope I had available was a Leupold 4x ler, which is quite hard for me to hold and use accurately with out a rest, so I mounted it on the Contender barrel with 3 weaver see -thru rings so I could use the iron sights offhand and up close. Sighted the Iron in @ 50 yds and the scope in @ 100. Worked perfectly and I liked it so good I left it as it was and am still using it.

I agree with the others on this forum about the see thru mts on rifles, but have found them to be very useful on Pistols.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #21 on:** February 18, 2008, 10:33:14 AM »

i never understood the el camino or ranchero concept either

Grumulkin · « **Reply #22 on:** February 18, 2008, 10:50:31 AM »

Quote from: Keith L on February 16, 2008, 02:42:43 AM

I got tired of people coming back to me after I installed them complaining about not being able to shoot good groups with their guns. I have yet to see mounts where you can get down far enough to see the iron sights and still have a reliable cheek weld so you get the same sight picture each time with the scope. Parallax difference at any real range moves the point of impact all over the target. And in hunting situations often shooters don't get shots that allow them to truly align the sight picture before taking the shot. Often that results in missed or lost game. And the mounts restrict the view with the iron sights. I don't find this as much of a problem as shooters with their head in the air looking through the scope, but it is a disadvantage just the same.

If your shooting allows for these disadvantages, then by all means use see thru mounts.

FWIW, I haven't had great luck with the quick release mounts either. While they can get back to within an inch or so of zero, and that may be good enough for some, I like to know I can get closer than that. No reason to have a gun that shoots moa and handicap it with a sight system that won't allow that to happen.

It is true that see through mounts hinder the use of iron sights but they're still very usable and provide a good back up for close range shots or in the case of a scope malfunction. As for good groups not being easy with see through scope mounts, my Encore 30/06 Springfield and 270 Winchester barrels both have see through mounts and are good for 1 MOA or less.

I have quick detachable mounts on Warne Weaver style rings on a 204 Ruger and on a 25/06 Remington barrel. The 204 Ruger groups 0.5 MOA or less and the 25/06 in the 0.25 to 0.35 MOA range. Furthermore, the scopes on both can be remove and reattached with no loss of zero.

Davemuzz · « **Reply #23 on:** February 18, 2008, 02:20:59 PM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on February 18, 2008, 10:33:14 AM

i never understood the el camino or ranchero concept either

Yeah....good point. The El Cam's were Malibu's with truck bed's welded to the back. The Ranchero's were Ford's knee jerk reaction to Chevy's bad idea. It was a time when idiot's were running Detroit. No wonder the Japs got a foothold, caught up and now have taken over. It's a long road back.....we will see if Detroit has the talent to pull it off. It took 'em years to mumble duck their way to this point.

Dave

pab · « **Reply #24 on:** February 18, 2008, 02:50:39 PM »

Although what it has to do with this thread, I have no idea, but the first El Camino was a full size 1959 Chevrolet and I loved my 1962 Falcon Ranchero in which I learned to drive and wish I still had it. What the world really needs is a truck like the old Falcon Ranchero with Front wheel Drive.

Davemuzz · « **Reply #25 on:** February 18, 2008, 11:56:51 PM »

Quote from: pab on February 18, 2008, 02:50:39 PM

Although what it has to do with this thread, .....

HIGHJACK

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #26 on:** February 19, 2008, 01:13:03 AM »

PAB ,
The see thru rings seem to be for those that can't decide if they want to have iron sights or a scope !
muck like the guy that can't decide if he wants a car or truck ! In both cases it is a bad comprise , as the truck with car load capability is not piratical ( as poor sales proved ) as a scope that requires lifting of the cheek off the stock is also bad !
both products only prove that good marketing far exceeds good products !
By the way President Bill Clinton is rumored to have driven an El Camino in college ! I rest my case !

rand4c · « **Reply #27 on:** February 19, 2008, 01:40:53 AM »

Not Really..I have 1.5 X 5 or 2 x 7 scopes on my rifles ,shotguns & muzzleloaders but it just seems to me there is less of a sight picture or it's harder to pick something up with a handgun scope at close range..Maybe I just need to get use to it..

Most times in a stand I have a 50 yard max. shot and sometimes deer can be 5-10 yards away..The last thing I want when hunting deer is to have to think so like bowhuntiing it would be a predetermined , measured thing , like 15 yards ( or whatever ) in , use the iron sights. .

Thanks for the replies...( well some of them..;-)...)...Randy

Keith L · « **Reply #28 on:** February 19, 2008, 01:11:03 PM »

If your shots are going to be short use iron sights or a red dot. You will pick up the target sooner, especially if you keep both eyes open.

Also, practice with the pistol scope. The more you use it the faster you will pick up your target. It is different than a rifle scope, and it takes practice to be good with it. I used to sit on the porch and sight on critters and even the occasional car that went past. Sadly it made the neighbors nervous so I had to move practice to a less occupied place. I nearly gave up on my first pistol scope. It had eye relief so extended my arms were to short!

And hunting in a 5-50 yard area I still prefer the iron sights. Over that for me a scope has become a must.

Grumulkin · « **Reply #29 on:** February 19, 2008, 01:32:47 PM »

It was really hard getting the cheek "weld" right but I was finally able to hit this groundhog with a Barnes 165 gr. TSX through a scope that was mounted "too high" because of see through scope mounts. This 30/06 only will group about 1 inch at 100 yards with the TSXs no doubt because of all the adverse parallax.

I also managed to work through the parallax and too high scope issue to take two deer about 2 minutes apart with this rifle. Then there were a couple of groundhogs but there was no parallax issue with one since I used the iron sights with it on the run 6 or 7 feet away. It was really hard to use the iron sights but fortunately I was able to get it all together within about 5 seconds. Then there were a couple of feral cats that succumbed despite very hard to deal with parallax problems. There are probably some more varmints I've forgotton. Oh, and did I mention the problem with cheek weld? I guess I ought to just discard the barrel and use it as a tomato stake.