Scalarworks 34mm leap mount unboxing

DILLIGAF

DILLIGAF

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
262   0   0
Location
Alberta
Well just got my 34mm LEAP mount, And all I can say is holy #### ! Ill do up a full review once Ive taken a few training classes and actually put it to the test.

Weight is surprisingly good. My ATRS 34mm rings came in on my scale at 5.1Oz and the LEAP 34mm mount came in at 5.7 Oz :sok2

That leveling screw is so simple, but yet is the most effective way to level a scope I have ever used. I would say even easier then the SPUHR leveling system I used in the past.

59406058_10157359545868552_18669003064999936_o.jpg

59936113_10157359546198552_3344169877215641600_o.jpg

59051845_10157359546133552_8701343969189036032_o.jpg
 
I love it thanks for sharing!
Looks like a 3 gun / service rifle mount more than a precision mount.
Would of probably got it at the time if i would of knew.

My razor 1-6 started in a cantilevered spuhr which i did not like (too bulky)
And is now in an ADM recon mount,
If i would of knew this existed at the time it’s probably what i would of got.

Got a picture under the mount?
Curious how the leveling screw (red screw we see?) is tightened from under.
 
DILLIGAF said:
I never said I was obsessing over grams. I just was surprised it was that light.
Click to expand...

No I didn't mean you specifically, just a comment regarding the general trend towards putting lightening cuts on everything, posting the weight of all one's parts and making things as flimsy as possible.
 
kthomas said:
Vertically split rings are atrocious for not maintaining a repeatable zero, among other offenses. I definitely would not recommend for a precision rifle.
Click to expand...

I've never had any problems with vertically split rings (Warne tactical specifically), aside from that you have to remove the rings from the rifle to replace the scope inside them (admittedly kind of annoying ;) ). Certainly I've never had any issues with zero not repeating.....

Not to discount your experience with them (I'd love to hear more details about the issues you've had and with which brands) BUT vertically split rings work functionally the same as horizontally split 'near-zero-gap' rings (which seem to work just fine so long as the company that makes them machined the ID to the correct size *looks pointedly at an un-named Canadian manufacturer*.
 
*MALICE* said:
I've never had any problems with vertically split rings (Warne tactical specifically), aside from that you have to remove the rings from the rifle to replace the scope inside them (admittedly kind of annoying ;) ). Certainly I've never had any issues with zero not repeating.....

Not to discount your experience with them (I'd love to hear more details about the issues you've had and with which brands) BUT vertically split rings work functionally the same as horizontally split 'near-zero-gap' rings (which seem to work just fine so long as the company that makes them machined the ID to the correct size *looks pointedly at an un-named Canadian manufacturer*.
Click to expand...

I remember reading about this on Sniper's Hide, here's the link;

https://forum.snipershide.com/threads/return-to-zero-failures.6483776/
 
mildot said:
I remember reading about this on Sniper's Hide, here's the link;

https://forum.snipershide.com/threads/return-to-zero-failures.6483776/
Click to expand...

Ok, so I read through that link;

1) So one poster mentioned that in a class they had a problem with 8 scopes, and ~3 of them used vertically split rings. But that still leaves 5 scopes with conventional rings that had issues. So on the surface, I would lean more towards: bad scopes, improper mounting, etc. Not impossible for it to be the rings.....but I'm not convinced on the surface.

2) There a video of a guy tightening warne maxima (not the tactical type, although the only real difference is the tactical rings can be removed from the rifle while the scope is still held in the rings) rings onto 2-piece bases with solid rods clamped in them. He tightens the rings bottom screws first, then tightens the tops ones (like you should) and then the rings slide on the bases. Now....it's possible the issue is with the rings, however, what occured in that video should not, theoretically, be possible as once you tighten the lower half of the ring, That's what clamps it to the rail. Then when you tighten the top screws, it clamps the scope. If it moves after that, either the ring dovetail is machined wrong (too big), OR the base is too small. If you tightened the base screws until the two halves have bottomed out.....it's not possible for them to separate at that point.

3) From spending a LOT of time around new shooters and 'experienced' shooters.......I wouldn't trust 95% of shooters to correctly mount a scope (let alone use it properly). I also wouldn't trust 75% of scopes I see on the market for anything other than fun (and admittedly, I don't own any NF or S&B scopes ;) )

4) When we are talking about vertically split rings; are we talking about Warne style where you fully tighten/bottom out the bottom screws and then tighten the top screws? Or are we talking about vertically split which are the same as horizontally split but rotated 90 degrees and/or vertically split with 'hinges'?
 
I didn't read anything negative about ARC rings IIRC, one of the common themes was quality, I don't go 'negative" on any product or anyone's choice unless I have personal experience or my info comes from a trusted source. I believe that Frank said, the split rings in question were LaRue? I've used LaRue mounts but not there split ring units.They worked well IMO.

I also read very quickly that the vertical "split ring" design exerts different pressure on the erector than does the horizontal ring

At this point, I run Badger or Spuhr, that's not to say the OP's mount isn't G2G?
 
Last edited:
ARC rings are not vertically split rings, they are clamshell style rings. May sound like a very minor distinction, but from an engineering standpoint the design is much superior and provides even amount of torque across the scope tube.

The ARC's are great rings, in fact, probably my favorite. The design is very clever, there is no issues with scope slipping. Super easy to mount a scope, as it's one screw/bolt per ring you have to deal with versus 4-6 on more conventional scopes.
 
Improper mounting is an issue. So is using scope rings/mounts of inferior quality - you definitely get what you pay for. I say that time and time again here, as the Canadian crowd seems to always try and get top level quality for basement prices. All that ends with is disappointment, and usually more money spent than if you had went with the more expensive/quality product in the first place.

To your point, there's no scientific peer reviewed study that says that vertically split rings are inferior in design to other styles. What there is though, is a lot of anecdotal evidence that points to vertically split rings having more issues than others. It's enough that people would be wise to not completely ignore.

Vertical rings do have more issues than other styles. Will the Scalar's? I don't know, but knowing that vertically split rings have had a lot of issues, I would avoid them all together for the piece of mind. It sucks when you are chasing problems, and it comes down to an equipment issue such as a scope mount. That's a lot of money to gamble on when you know there are many other products with excellent engineering and track records behind them.
 
Last edited:
Cool, but that is alot of money for scope rings, I hope you get good use out of it.

It looks solid, and its 7075, should be beefy as heck, only criticsm I would give is the hinge pin looks like the Achilles heel in another wise robust component. Should take a bashing and remain intact being 7075 over 6061.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom