See through rings, the FUDD mount! It works!
- Thread starter John Y Cannuck
- Start date
- Location
- The Conservative part of Ontario
A valid point. Old stuff works, always has.
I've made a point of trying it out.
Just do your part, and it won't fail you.
Most of my rifles were designed prior to 1900!
The 88 is modern by my standards.
Yes I have rifles with no irons, but I'd never limit myself to just those. They have their place.
Future hunters will laugh at lead bullets, probably use sighting systems that have yet to be thought up, and have camo that makes them invisible to all but zombie Liberals.
Liberals, will we ever be shod of them sticking their fingers in our business?
It sure does. I just smile when todays generation laugh at all of our old stuff and I say HEY if things have gotten so much better why then do the experts still say to this day and I quote
Amazingly, since John Browning’s death in 1926, there have been no further fundamental changes in the modern firearm industry worth duscussing. Think about that one
Talk about old school design stuff still being used today that works.
Cheers
Hmm... many moons ago, I (shamed to admit) used these on a few rifles. Two things became evident:
1) I never needed to sue them once I switched from the 1970's era Weaver "TV" scopes to proper Leupold glass in the low-magnification range ala 2-7X, 1-5X, etc.; and
2) They were flimsy enough that every season I needed to adjust my scopes by 2 or 3 inches at 100m POI; and
3) At close range, they put the glass so high that parallax became more than a theoretical problem; and
4) Ugly scope rings makes baby Jesus cry.
Best "Readers Digest" version of the reasons see through mounts are a very bad choice. Although that's Four things.
I pray that the next gen re-discovers quality and we can watch for miles as the pyres consume every single Remington model 710 ever produced. Even better if we include all the 742s with their self-eating receiver rails.
If you ask the traditionalist hunters, they will tell you that everything but patched roundball is a passing fad - lol.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
It sure does. I just smile when todays generation laugh at all of our old stuff and I say HEY if things have gotten so much better why then do the experts still say to this day and I quote
Amazingly, since John Browning’s death in 1926, there have been no further fundamental changes in the modern firearm industry worth duscussing. Think about that one
Talk about old school design stuff still being used today that works.
Cheers
Old technology that has been proven through time remains as good today as it ever was; and today remains the foundation of practical improvements that now and in the future are made possible due to new technologies and to new materials. New materials have brought us the AR-15 rifle and the Glock pistol. Before aluminum and composites existed, these guns would not have been possible. While the idea that something is good, simply because its new, is flawed, just as flawed is the idea that everything old, was a good idea in the first place. See through rings come to mind in this respect. New ideas come about for two reasons, to make money, and to make our lives more convenient. An example of old technology that is as good today as it ever was, is the bolt action rifle, and a good example of a bolt action hunting rifle made early in the 20th Century remains a viable tool today, unlike the Model T Ford. The model T, which despite being made at the time of the Great War, just like several very good bolt action rifles, is today no longer a viable machine, but over the years the concept was improved upon through technological advances, to give us the product we enjoy today. An example of a modern improvement to the bolt action rifle is the light weight mountain rifle concept, made possible only because of new materials that didn't exist early in the 20th Century, but this improvement takes nothing away from the usefulness of an early Mauser 98 sporting rifle chambered for a cartridge still seen as modern.
Best "Readers Digest" version of the reasons see through mounts are a very bad choice. Although that's Four things.
Ya, I forgot to change that. I edited the post from 2 to 4 reasons - oops!
Well done.
Back in the day when silouete shooting was all the rage, I remember that a large number of those guys used to use these rings simply to get their scopes as high as possible. I tried out a few rifles set up in such a fashion, and I personally found the position that they forced me to shoot in very uncomfortable. My preference is to have the scope as low as possible for all shooting positions, especially for standing shots.
Ivor
Ivor
Boomer summed it up perfectly.
Also, like the Model T Ford, there will always be a collector or enthusiast of some form to keep the fudd technology alive and well. As stated earlier, the fudd technology is the foundation of current and future technology. Without them we would have nothing. Long live the FUDDS.
Some old school equipment was very good, and as a result, it is still available today. However most of the old school ideas that are no longer available, were discontinued because they were never a good idea.
Yes and no IMO. Many old school designs and products are now no longer being manufactured not because they were not good ideas but because manufacturer's can no longer compete with the junk out there and afford to produce them to the old specifications in todays world of everything being disposable
Overall I find today very few will pay for quality. I seen that this morning as I am out blowing snow with my 33 year old honda snowblower as buddy next door is using probally his 6th or more new one in the past 25 years and still thinks I am nuts for buying all honda small engine products
Cheers
Then again Honda is still making good snowblowers, they just cost more. I am still mowing my lawn with a John Deere mower that was built in the 90s. Unfortunately John Deere no longer markets a mower with the heavy aluminum deck, and a Kawasaki engine with forced oil system and remote spin on oil filter. You are correct in that many people don't want to pay for the extra quality. However, the old see through rings were never a quality product.
Agree. The new john deer are nothing like the older ones
I have done replacement on a pile of mandrill deck bearings in them for friends and family which I never would see in the older ones
Ya I never really liked the rings either but there are many guys down this way that still love them by them
me I think there is one set still installed on a 7400 30/06 and that is it
Bet I still have 1/2 dozen new packs of them somewhere buried in a box
Cheers
Cheers
- Location
- The Conservative part of Ontario
Thanks for the laughs guys, 'specially Boomer, you should write professionally great stuff.
I probably use my rifles more roughly than the average gunnut would ever think of doing, and so far, the rings have been fine. That includes falls, atv rides and an assortment of unfortunate damage that adds new marks most every year.
I like the set up, and will continue to use it, i'll let you know if it ever fails as predicted by so many.
I probably use my rifles more roughly than the average gunnut would ever think of doing, and so far, the rings have been fine. That includes falls, atv rides and an assortment of unfortunate damage that adds new marks most every year.
I like the set up, and will continue to use it, i'll let you know if it ever fails as predicted by so many.
White-Spring
Member
- Location
- British Coumbia
I'm no expert, but at closer ranges, the parallax error would be a greater factor on a higher mounted scope such as this. So I'm not sure your statement about shorter ranges is correct.
