See-through scope mount

[Moloch]

Hi!

I am planning do build a scout-type rifle on a mauser 98 action chambered in .308. I want a small scope like 1.4-5x32 or something in that power level, mounted with a see-through scope mount to be able to use the iron sights for close quarter aiming.

So I wanted to know how you like see-through scope mounts, and of course lots of opinions! Thanks!

 

[fisherman66]

I'd prefer "quick disconnect" mounts or a lower power scope. I prefer to keep my scope as low to the bore as possible for a good cheek weld.

 

[Black Frog]

I totally agree with Fisherman66. I do not care for the 'see through' mounts at all. I have never needed them in all my years of hunting with a scope mounted nice and low (where it should be).

 

[Moloch]

My aim (no pun intended) is to build a rifle where I mainly use the iron sights, but if the need arises to make a shot at a target at long distance ( Lets say 200-300 yards) with a scope. Always having a quick detachable scope in a bag does not sound very practical.
.
I saw a steyr AUG which had iron sights directly on the top of the optical sights, neat idea but very crude design and short line of sight. The see-through mount sound like a good idea, but I never had the opportunity to try them out.

 

[fisherman66]

The scout "idea" is to employ a low power, long eye-relief scope. The low power renders irons almost obsolete.

I've used see-thoughs and they work as advertised. I felt a little odd with my jaw on the buttstock and not my cheek.

I doubt the elevated scope would help with balance either.

The mounts aren't expensive. If ya's like it then fine, if not ya not out much $.

 

[Moloch]

@ Fisherman

I just measured how much higher a scope must be mounted with the see-through mounts for clearing the iron sights, it would only require a little bit over 1'' higher placed scope, not THAT much.

The mounts aren't expensive. If ya's like it then fine, if not ya not out much $.

You are right, I found see-throughs for 10 bucks, I 'll try them out.

 

[Doyle]

I like see-through mounts on my normal (non-long-range) hunting rifles. A couple of years ago, I killed two pigs that were so close that I would have never seen them in the scope. That being said however, there are good see-through rings and not so good ones. Leupold makes some good ones. Weavers are marginal. B Square doesn't even count.

 

[Moloch]

IMO they look pretty good, as low as possible and quiet large ''gap'' to look through.They look like they are worth a try.

 

[fisherman66]

it would only require a little bit over 1'' higher placed scope, not THAT much.

Look at the increments between low, medium and high rings then tell me it's "not THAT much".

Off ta work, catch ya on the flip side.

 

[a7mmnut]

Just REMEMBER:

Every ballistics chart in history has figured those trig angles from only 1.5" above the bore center. You'll have to make your own if you deviate from that, and the farther the distance, the more difficult to manage from a steeper angle. -7-

 

[Doyle]

Every ballistics chart in history has figured those trig angles from only 1.5" above the bore center. You'll have to make your own if you deviate from that, and the farther the distance, the more difficult to manage from a steeper angle

Remington's Remshoot (not perfect but close enought) has user adjustable scope height. I use 2.5 as the height when computing with see-through mounts.

 

[L_Killkenny]

They suck. Guns with open sights have a stock designed for a good check weld when using the open sights. You can usually get away with a low mounted scope. But raising the scope that far above bore makes a good check weld nearly impossible. Top that off with the fact that you don't need em. Ever! What the heck for? Scope to powerful? You're bad. Scope shifts point of aim? Remove it.

If people would figure out that you don't need 6x-1billion power scopes they would be better off. 1.5x-4x and 2x-7x scopes are so much faster/better for close in shooting and quick target acquisition that they negate the need to ever need see thru sights. One of the biggest waste of $$ a shooter can spend on a rifle.

No self respecting rifleman would be caught dead with em on his gun!

 

[jmr40]

Killkenny about said it all.

 

[taylorce1]

I wouldn't use them and will not ever buy a set of see-thru mounts. Plus the mounts you are looking at will not work on the type of rifle you want to build.

I am planning do build a scout-type rifle

Scout style rifles you a scout scope that is mounted in front of the receiver on the barrel. If you use the Leupold Scout Scope it is a fixed 2.5 power scope, some people try higher powered variable EER pistol scopes to varying degree of success. These scopes are designed to be mounted as low as possible and most on a Weaver rail. That is the way I'd want it mounted in QRW rings, that way if you want a back up set of sites, you could mount a peep on the rear receiver ring and a hooded front on the barrel.

You can't have the best of both worlds, so the best compromise is to take the scope off when you want to use the irons.

 

[Moloch]

I know, the typical scout rifles have the optical sights mounted on the barrel, not the receiver.
I have tried them on a friends steyr and I found them awkward to use, defenitely a no-go on my rifle. I am not thinking of a scout as a specific type of rifle like the steyr scout or the scout from savage, I think of scouts as small rugged bolt-action rifles, with a low power scope, good iron sights with a medium barrel around 20 inches or less in .308.

I wish there would be a way to have both iron sights and small scope available simultaneously. What do you think of the side mount like the old sniper mausers had? As far as I can remember they cold use both irons and opticals at the same time.

 

[Hawg]

With the power level you're talking about you don't need iron sights for close work. Sight in for your longest distance and see where it hits up close and compensate for it. I've tried the see through rings. If I still had them I'd give them to you but I wouldn't be doing you any favors.

 

[boneman_66]

I echo Fisherman and Kilkenny's comments. I had see through mounts on my marlin 336 and I hated them. Swapped them out for standard mounts which has made for a much better cheek weld and hence better shooting.

To each his own though - do what works for you.

Boneman

 

[4x4HD]

I'm just a hunter, no expert shooter, but I have used see-thru mounts on a Rem 760 that I had bought from a guy that already had them on it. I hunted with this gun for about 8 years with the same see-thru mounts, and I never had any problems with them. I liked them on that gun but would not buy them for any of my other big guns. I have them on the 10/22 and I like them on it. Just my $.02. Have a good day.

 

[sholling]

I despise see through mounts. There is simply no way to get a decent cheek weld using one.

A far better solution is to go with a low power variable mounted as low as possible. Something in the area of a 1-4x or a 2-8x, and since most people can't the broad side of a barn at 400yds using a chin weld the 1-4x sounds like the best overall solution - but you may still need to add a cheek rest.

If that's too radical then I suggest a Weaver mount with quick disconnect rings. The problem will be that your cheek position will shift radically when switching between irons and the scope.

 

[Scorch]

Hawg Haggen nailed it. A 1.4X scope is like not having a scope at all, there is no magnification to worry about, just point and click, so to speak. Due to how magnification through the lenses is calculated, a 1.4X scope is actually a 1X scope, no real image magnification. Mounted forward like it is, it works like iron sights, but you can focus on your target instead of focusing on the front sight. That's the reason the Germans developed the infantryman's scope concept during WWII, it allows faster target acquisition and firing. And at 5X, you're good all the way out to 500 yds.