Where did you put the rings when you mounted your ultradot?

[Whiterabbit]

Hi guys,

I just mounted an ultradot on my BFR and noticed that where I chose to put my rings is different than you other guys. But all the pics I've seen here, they are all different too! About the only thing that was constant or nearly so is that the scope was mounted as rearward as possible.

After that, I saw rings closely spaced, rings widely spaced, and in one pic, the installer put on the extension tube and placed the ring as far forward as possible on the extension tube!

I'm hoping some of you guys can explain why you made the mounting decisions you did. I'm figuring there's more than one way to skin a cat here, but just want to know the theory behind using the methods you guys chose.

[subsonic]

http://www.castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=36946&d=1319494444

Because I didn't want to run the extension/sun shade and I didn't want to be over glass with the ring. I don't really like to be against the turret, but it is what it is.

The closer it is to your eye, the wider the field of view.

[Whiterabbit]

up against the turret? You mean the body center? It doesn't look like your rings are there, are they? And why not?

I have to admit, that's exactly where I put my front ring. Against (actually about .5mm away) the body of the red dot. As I think about it now, according to my theory (prevention of slide during recoil) I should have slid the REAR ring against the body of the red dot.

But am I reading you right? you prefer separation? as in, widest possible spacing you can get without being on the glass?

[subsonic]

The scope will try to stay put while the gun will try to pull to the rear during recoil. The end result i the scope wants to slide forward in the rings.

Putting the turrett against the ring can pull a 2 piece optic apart.

Further apart is better if you can get it, for the same reson you put the legs at the corners of a table. But in this case this is what I chose as the best compromise to avoid having a ring over the glass.

[Whiterabbit]

cool. Easy fix.

How does the ring against turret pull the optic apart? I was thinking like shooting shotgun. Hold the butt against the shoulder, and impact forces are far lower than if I hold the butt an inch off my shoulder.

I was thinking, eliminate the slide distance. I can see that's not recommended in this case, but with that in mind (shotgun analogy), I don't understand how ring against the turret will destroy the optic.

[Baja_Traveler]

I found this position on my Single Six provided the best balance for silhouette shooting with this particular revolver. I have since moved it to a Contender.22 barrel where it is mounted further back. Of course with a .22 recoil is a non issue.

http://www.pbase.com/baja_traveler/image/135986346.jpg

[Whiterabbit]

So, I have the matchdot too, and that's how I chose to mount it (having no other guidance), albeit as far back as I could get it.

With exception that the rings can't butt against the turret due to slot position, so I'm maybe .5mm off in front and maybe 2mm off in back (I never like butting anything that tightens like a collet at the very very end of a shaft).

But I will be shooting a very heavy recoiling revolver, not a 22. I wouldn't mind installing the tube extension out front and installing the ring there, I just would rather know that that is preferred and why.

Would also be good to know if it's recommended to install a strip of paper or carpet tape (really, really, really thin 2-sided tape) inside the ring. Now that a google search indicated some folks do that.

[subsonic]

The extension tube is probably not the best idea.

Any time I have put anything on rings it only worked to reduce grip.

Good rings work. Bad rings don't.

[Whiterabbit]

44man used the extension tube on one of his revolvers. You mentioned you didn't want to run the extension tube, now suggest it's a bad idea. Why? I'm also still trying to understand why mounting close to the turret can shake the optic apart, google is coming up empty.

easy enough to leave the paper or tape off.

[Whiterabbit]

Subsonic,

Assuming it's better to get the rings father as you suggested, then wouldn't the extension tube be better? Assuming the extension tube is a solid fastener?

With the best potential solution three rings, one in back, one in front, and one on the extension tube?

[bisleyfan41]

Not a red dot, but I've had the turret of my Leupold 2x up against the rings on a SBH Hunter for years and hundreds of rounds. It has a 2-pc tube; it ain't gonna seperate. You're correct in mounting this way to eliminate scope movement in the rings. Movement usually isn't a problem unless you're dealing with heavy recoil and/or a heavy scope.

The ext tube is rather fragile and I would not mount a ring on it. Subsonic's advice of not mounting rings where the glass will be under them is sound advice. Just mount the thing; you're overthinking it too much.

[Whiterabbit]

That was my attitude about the ejector rod housing screw. Just tighten it down, don't overthink it. Then it sheared. If this red dot comes with all these great accessories, I want to know why I won't (or will) be using them. Or will recognize the scenario I might want to use them if I encounter it!

But yes, it is already mounted, can't let overthinking get in the way of experimentation and progress. Always important though to continue research while conducting empirical study.

I've been putting about 100 rounds a week of 460 S&W through this revolver for the past month and a half or so, so I'm dealing with enormous recoil and lots of repetition. I'm just trying to understand the mechanisms behind what's going on too, to give myself a fighting chance at a solid mount that will last.

[44man]

It depends on recoil. I like the extension tube so I stay away from glass. The best for heavy kickers is the front ring against the turret.
Just don't put a tight ring directly over glass.
The distance a red dot is from your eyes means nothing. Ring spacing means nothing.
Protect glass and keep the thing from moving. The gun will try to pull from under the scope because of scope inertia so the scope will move forward if it slides.
Long bases can flex to the point of beating marks on the barrel, cheap ones can break in half. Try to keep rings close to screws in the base. Flexing bases are hard on scopes.

[subsonic]

There are lots of places for things to fail. You will find the weak points if you try different things. 44man has been there and done that as close as possible to what you are trying to do, so his advice is that which I would value most. His long cylinder gun and mount is very close to yours.

He has mentioned that he has had slip when using the extension, so that and the fact that the extension may reduce light in some circumstances when hunting (untested theory here), plus the fact that I don't like the way it looks lead me to try it this way. 3 rings would hold better than 2.

[Whiterabbit]

That's the next step, if this doesn't work out. seems like the conclusion is keep what I have going now, MAYBE if I can push the front ring forward and slide the red dot forward so the front ring is against the turret (.5mm clearance) and the rear ring is still off glass maybe that's OK.

Then if it slides, ask ultradot west if they will sell me another ring or two and put it on the extension for a 3 ring mount. only if it loosens.

good. I have a good baseline for range day this weekend. This is going to be fun.

[Tom W.]

I've ruined three scopes due to bonehead mounting on my part. These weren't Ultra Dots, just a Nikon Buckmaster, a Leatherwood Expert, and a Simmons, and the common thread was I had put a ring up against the turret. I soon ( but not soon enough ) put an end to this foolishness, and haven't had a problem since...

If it works for you, fine, but I'll not do it again.

[Whiterabbit]

how'd you ruin them? What happened? How did ring mounting near the turret contribute to failure?

[subsonic]

I got the Warne rings and didn't look back. I would definitely use them on a .460 s&w

[44man]

I've ruined three scopes due to bonehead mounting on my part. These weren't Ultra Dots, just a Nikon Buckmaster, a Leatherwood Expert, and a Simmons, and the common thread was I had put a ring up against the turret. I soon ( but not soon enough ) put an end to this foolishness, and haven't had a problem since...

If it works for you, fine, but I'll not do it again.
I wonder too. How strong are the tubes?
I totally ruined a Burris tube on a .44 mag, my SBH with a 10" barrel. Nothing would hold the scope even 3 rings. The tube is so soft it slid because rings would just squeeze the tube. Making them tighter just crushed the tube more and it still slid. Rosin or tape did not work.
Ultra Dots have strong tubes. My old Loopy has been on 100 guns up to the .500 JRH and I have a Tasco that is as strong as a steel bar.
I pulled the front prizm out of Millet and Bushnell red dots with recoil on the .44. I made the mistake of putting a ring over glass on the Bushnell and broke it. No, it was not too tight but the tube is not tough enough.
I have heard of the poor mount systems on the heads up stuff shearing or bending the screws.
Now going to a .454, .460, .475 or .500, you better pay attention.
This is how I put the Ultra Dot on my .500 JRH. The 45-70 and .475 have been doing fine with a ring on the extension tube but I use Warne on the .475. The extension is tough, just get it tight. It will NOT cut light and cuts reflections.

[44man]

The BFR base is tough but can flex a little at the front. It has not caused any concern on my guns. It does not bend and stay there nor will it break. I thought about it but so far it has worked for me. The third ring against the turret has made it much stiffer. Glass is just forward of that ring so I stay away just in case.
I try to stress just how many "G" forces a revolver can have on a scope, bases, base screws and rings.
The worst was a Swift scope. Good tough tube but I gutted it in a few shots on the .475. The replacement is on a MARK II. :bigsmyl2:

[Frank]

One thing to watch for is for the rear tube loosening on the Ultradots. You will see your sight canted sideways and think the rings aren't tight. What happens is the tube loosens causing the front ring to slip. It happens clockwise. 44man's strap wrench allows for good tightening.

[subsonic]

For whiterabbit:

The torque I used for my MR base was:

35inlb on the two larger screws an 28inlb on the sight screw.

I used 28 inlb on the Warne ring screws.

[Tom W.]

What happened was the recoil from the rifles caused the turret to knock against the ring, doing something to ruin the adjustments. I would get a shot on target, the next shot would be who knows where, as would the third. Blue loc-titing things didn't help. Scratched my head, made the proper adjustments, and the second shot after adjusting the impact was all over. I did it with my .308 which has Leupold rings and bases, my Handi Rifle, which I don't remember what kind of set up I had, and with my Ruger #1, using their double offset rings.
I never had any problems when I had my .480 Ruger with the supplied rings or with my Encore .454, which had a Burris scope and the rings with the soft inserts. Those things held and nothing slipped, moved, or broke.
I have a cheap Tasco that's mounted on my 30/30 Handi that hasn't given me a bit of trouble, and the rings aren't near the turret.I've had it for over 20 years..

[Whiterabbit]

Cool guys, the warne rings look like a good idea and in the long run is cheap insurance.

So, I think my scope did slip (just got back from the range). I very clearly remember leaving a gap in front of the ring, very very very slight, and now it seems like the turret is butted against the ring. I also feel like I had a wandering zero, since point of impact seemed to shift after 70 rounds or so (out of 115 fired). groups didn't change, just their location. That could be just me though because I'm a terrible shot, I changed the lead I used in my castings, I sized bigger, I could have been simply fatiguing, any number of issues. I'd blame the shooter if I saw any evidence of gap between the ring and turret (I still blame the shooter, but I do think there was slip here.)

So! Warne rings it is, maybe widen the ring stance, maybe even use three rings.

But now I notice something even stranger. All your extension tubes look like they screw on the front. I'm using the matchdot, not the ultradot30, but my extension tube screws on the back, not the front. Front has different threads. I checked several times over the week and even just now too just to idiot check myself before posting. I'm gonna post some photos in a minute when my son settles down enough to go into the bassinet.

I detected no visual difference with or without the extension tube with regards to reflections or transmittance. So after you guys see the pics, I'd be curious on your thoughts about running it but in the back.

lemme get some photos up.

[Whiterabbit]

Here are the pictures:


The polarizer lens on the front use larger threads than the extension tube, so everything only fits one way.

[subsonic]

How was the leading? Looks like the EJRH is still on it. Screw stay tight?

[Whiterabbit]

All of the screws are tight, EJRH, front sight (now gone, but was on for range day), bottom of grip frame. They did "something" at the factory and now the loading gate is a bastard to open. But everything else feels tight too, at least. Trigger needs work though, I don't know if I should have them do it as a paid service or pay a local gunsmith. Dunno if I want to deal with shipping, though MR turned my gun around FAST.

Looks like it's still leading but I'm not sure, I'm trying to clean it now. My son won't sit still for 5 seconds so I can go investigate. I'm even typing this one handed, the other is holding him. Admittedly, I can go bigger on the bullets, I can still see light between the bullet when dry/unlubed and the cylinder throat. just. I didn't want to go overboard opening the sizing die the first time.

but who knows, maybe the leading is so slight that #9 on a jag for 5-10 passes will clear it. could happen. :)

[Whiterabbit]

nope, still leads and is a bastard to clean. Will open up the sizing die even more.

[44man]

Here are the pictures:


The polarizer lens on the front use larger threads than the extension tube, so everything only fits one way.
I wish I had a Match Dot here to see. Most threads are the same front and rear.

[44man]

OOPS, I do have one here and the extension is on the front. It is Whit's match Dot I took off his .44 to put the 6 on.

[subsonic]

What size are the throats in the cylinder?
What load are you shooting?

The .460 would seem like a challenge to me to get to shoot lead at full speed.

I would try AA1680 powder if you haven't. Accurate Arms website has data. It's a slow ball powder. Between H110/296 and H4198 for speed. You're going to need a very tough boolit, both in alloy and hardness and in shape - lots of front drive band and good body bands. Maybe a 360gr WFN?

[subsonic]

You have to unscrew the front cap on the UD before you put on the extension.

[44man]

You have to unscrew the front cap on the UD before you put on the extension.
Yep, then put the trim ring back on the extension.
I have found no use for the polaroid filter unless you shoot into the sun.

[Whiterabbit]

I found the polarizer was required at the range, I couldn't see the dot otherwise (I wear polarized glasses as well.

But for the life of me, I don't see how that extension tube fits on the front. Checked google images, searched this forum, re-inspected my matchdot, there's just no way that tube goes on the front. It doesn't look like the cap on the front would take the lens with it? Looks like the lens sits farther back than the boundary between cap and tube body. I wouldn't be able to get that cap off anyways with the tools I have without marking up the body.

Though I've decided it doesn't matter. There is just enough space with the polarizer lens in place to get the front ring far out in front. I just need to confirm it will or will not hold in the interim as I wait for the warne rings. So the extension won't be used in either case.

So it may fit the front of the ultradot, but I just do not see how it could possibly fit the front of the matchdot.

[98Redline]

The sunshade does in fact fit on both the front and rear of the MatchDot. I have one on my Bisley Hunter in just this configuration. Works great and cuts down glare.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-eGPCqFAm1h0/TlUycv_P6uI/AAAAAAAAAB4/PoyhoD-91K0/s469/Bisley%252520Hunter.jpg

[44man]

I found the polarizer was required at the range, I couldn't see the dot otherwise (I wear polarized glasses as well.

But for the life of me, I don't see how that extension tube fits on the front. Checked google images, searched this forum, re-inspected my matchdot, there's just no way that tube goes on the front. It doesn't look like the cap on the front would take the lens with it? Looks like the lens sits farther back than the boundary between cap and tube body. I wouldn't be able to get that cap off anyways with the tools I have without marking up the body.

Though I've decided it doesn't matter. There is just enough space with the polarizer lens in place to get the front ring far out in front. I just need to confirm it will or will not hold in the interim as I wait for the warne rings. So the extension won't be used in either case.

So it may fit the front of the ultradot, but I just do not see how it could possibly fit the front of the matchdot.
The trim cap must be removed first. It is the small thing on front. Put the extension on and then put the trim cap on the extension.
The trim cap DOES have threads in it for the polarize filter.

[Whiterabbit]

cool. Thanks guys. In case I want to play with this in the future, how do you get the cap off? It's pretty tight on my matchdot.

[44man]

cool. Thanks guys. In case I want to play with this in the future, how do you get the cap off? It's pretty tight on my matchdot.
I use a hunk of bike inner tube to grip it. Or a rubber strap wrench. They are not super tight but are slippery.

[Markbo]

...https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-eGPCqFAm1h0/TlUycv_P6uI/AAAAAAAAAB4/PoyhoD-91K0/s469/Bisley%252520Hunter.jpg

Who makes that mount?

[44man]

Who makes that mount?
That is a Weigand base. Just make sure you get it tight and centered.

[Whiterabbit]

I have found no use for the polaroid filter unless you shoot into the sun.


I found the polarizer was required at the range....

I got a chance to take the BFR hunting last weekend, testing in overcast weather, dawn, dusk, and in the rain.

I just wanted to bump the thread to say: you were right.