Which Cantilever QD mount?

[Jay]

Hey guys;

Swapping scopes around... So, I am looking your recommendation as to which Cantilever QD (preferably) mount I should use to put a Leupold VX-1 3-9x40 on a BCL102... Yes, it's a 1" tube...

Link?

Thanks in advance!

Cheers
Jay

 

[cr5]

I like the QD Burris PEPR but it's a little heavy for some people.
I think I have 4 or 5 of them and one of them is a 1" model.

 

[Uisge]

Aero’s are nice and light and cheap, I have one in 30mm on my 102 and another holding a 10x elite tactical that hasn’t made it on to anything yet. As with most light weight stuff I doubt they are as durable as a ADM etc, but has been working great for me. View attachment 202631

 

[BooSSted]

I always use the American Defense Recon Mounts. Not the cheapest, but in my experience they are the best in the price bracket.

 

[rifleman338]

Another one to consider is the Freedom Reaper from DNZ. I have one waiting for my Stag 10 when she shows her face.

 

[1-trident-1]

arms has a qd that mounts low.

 

[FoxAlpha]

I always use the American Defense Recon Mounts. Not the cheapest, but in my experience they are the best in the price bracket.

Same here,although compared to some newer options they're reasonably priced. They usually go on the EE for 200 bucks. I can't see how a 400 dollar Geissele or a 600+ dollar sphur could hold a scope any better.

 

[RAConnol]

Yup +2 for the QD Burris PEPR on my BCL and RA XCR-L

 

[Aprilia Man]

arms has a qd that mounts low.

Same here,although compared to some newer options they're reasonably priced. They usually go on the EE for 200 bucks. I can't see how a 400 dollar Geissele or a 600+ dollar sphur could hold a scope any better.

ADM QD for me as well.

Holds zero good even if you remove and re-install it.

 

[mileageman]

I’ve had good luck with ADM & Spuhr.

On my Maccabee I’m going to try the JP Enterprises one. Ordered from brownells.

 

[jjohnwm]

I always wonder about the desire for the cantilever feature? I'm certain that there are some few firearms which require it, but most black rifles are equipped with a full-length pic rail on top which allows for easy placement of rings at any point on the rail. The rifles pictured in this thread are a perfect example; each one of those would allow their scopes to be mounted in exactly the same position with simple non-cantilevered mounts, or even...God forbid the lack of cool!...two individual high rings.

I get the QD feature; easy and repeatable removal/replacement of an optic is always a good thing. But why the cantilever?

 

[b_w.]

I always wonder about the desire for the cantilever feature? I'm certain that there are some few firearms which require it, but most black rifles are equipped with a full-length pic rail on top which allows for easy placement of rings at any point on the rail. The rifles pictured in this thread are a perfect example; each one of those would allow their scopes to be mounted in exactly the same position with simple non-cantilevered mounts, or even...God forbid the lack of cool!...two individual high rings.

I get the QD feature; easy and repeatable removal/replacement of an optic is always a good thing. But why the cantilever?

Want both rings on the receiver, not the rail. With that said the large fram receiver might be big enough for rings. I like either the adm or vortex cantilever mounts.

 

[jjohnwm]

Want both rings on the receiver, not the rail. With that said the large fram receiver might be big enough for rings. I like either the adm or vortex cantilever mounts.

Okay, that sounds reasonable and I hadn't considered it. Thanks.

On the bronze gun in this thread, two individual rings could be placed on the receiver handily, and could actually span a greater distance on the scope than the one-piece mount pictured, making for a stronger overall system. The OD gun looks like it could also accept two rings on the receiver...barely...but would require moving the forward ring backwards a bit to maintain that particular scope in that exact position, so less desirable.

 

[SJAR]

I'm trying a Kinetic Development Group QD mount. I really like the quick detach system and it's supposed to hold zero between changes but I haven't tested it yet

 

[mileageman]

I always wonder about the desire for the cantilever feature? I'm certain that there are some few firearms which require it, but most black rifles are equipped with a full-length pic rail on top which allows for easy placement of rings at any point on the rail. The rifles pictured in this thread are a perfect example; each one of those would allow their scopes to be mounted in exactly the same position with simple non-cantilevered mounts, or even...God forbid the lack of cool!...two individual high rings.

I get the QD feature; easy and repeatable removal/replacement of an optic is always a good thing. But why the cantilever?

Cantilevered mounts are just about always required on a AR-5 sized rifle to keep the scope attached to the receiver and maintaining proper eye relief. On larger frame AR10 sized rifles most of the time they do not require a cantilever mountand you can run regular scope rings. In my opinion cantilevered mounts on rifles that do not require them look stupid, like a rear wing on a Honda Civic. But I guess if you want to buy only one scope mount and swap the scope around it sorta makes sense.