One piece v 2 piece mount?

[Lost]

Does a one piece mount limit your scope positioning for eye relief positioning?

If I'm going to be using a scope I've never used on a rifle I've never shot I'm thinking I might be better off with a two-piece mounting setup.

Am I over-thinking this?

[Hangtown-Shooter]

You are correct in thinking a 1-PC mount will usually allow less room for scope placement compared to 2-PC rings.

I myself prefer the looks of 2-PC ring sets and use them on most applications. A high-recoiling magnum springer is the only time I would choose a 1-PC mount, but that is only my opinion.

[Apex]

I've been using two piece mounts on my AA ProSport for many years and I've never had problems.  Also just mounted a new scope to the Walther LGU and went with two piece again.  If you decide to go to a one piece mounting setup, remember that some scope/mount combos don't work together because of interference between the bottom of the scope and the middle of the mount.
   

[Booger]

I prefer these in both 1" & 30mm.

https://www.pyramydair.com/product/bkl-1-pc-adjustable-scope-mount-1-rings-3-8-dovetail-black?a=4134

[grauhanen]

What rifle are you using?  A one-piece mount is better on a rifle that has more recoil.  The two-piece work well on lightly recoiling guns.

[Lost]

Two different rifles but first will be a RWS Diana 45.

[grauhanen]

The D45 is similar to the D34 in terms of recoil.  The one-piece mount will hold better.

[nced]

Does a one piece mount limit your scope positioning for eye relief positioning?

If I'm going to be using a scope I've never used on a rifle I've never shot I'm thinking I might be better off with a two-piece mounting setup.

Am I over-thinking this?

I prefer a one piece mount if the scope will fit. I have a 3-12x44 Optisan Viper and with the Viper side wheel the scope will fit between the rings of the BKL one piece mount which is a bit longer than my UTG and the top straps are narrower, however it wouldn't fit between the rings of my UTG one piece mount without modifying the side wheel. Here are a couple pics.....
Side wheel before modifying against the UTG mount......
Uploaded at Snapagogo.com
Scope in UTG mount after modification with lathe........
Uploaded at Snapagogo.com
I personally prefer the cheap UTG one piece mount to my BKL mount because the top straps are considerably wider with 4 smaller screws in each top strap so the scope stays put with less screw torque than required for the BKLs and the UTGs have a stop pin where the BKLs don't.
My collection of scope mounts......
Uploaded at Snapagogo.com

I don't know if this is a valid reason for preferring the one piece mount but since the mounts and the scope are aluminium it seems that there would be equal expansion between the mount and scope with temperature changes and the differential expansion of steel/aluminium occurring at the clamp on the scope mounting dovetail. With the two piece scope mount it seems to me that the differential expansion between the steel receiver and aluminium scope tube would occur at the scope tube.

I do know that even 15 inch pounds of torque on the narrow (less than 1/2" wide) BKL two piece double strap mounts can damage the scope tube as this pic shows........
Uploaded at Snapagogo.com
See the distinctive "BKL double dents". Still, my scope slipped in these mounts on my 13fpe R9 with only 10 inch pounds of torque......
Uploaded at Snapagogo.com
I guess there was some scope slippage issues with the BKL double strap mounts because there are now triple strap BKLs offered with 4 base screws in each mount.......
Uploaded at Snapagogo.com

I even had one piece BKL mounts slip on my R9.....
Uploaded at Snapagogo.com
But I do have to admit that the base screws were torqued to only 25 inch pounds of torque instead of the BKL max recommended torque of 35 inch pounds. The scope slipped with 12 inch pounds of torque on the top strap screws but I was afraid of using more torque due to previously damaging scopes with the BKL double strap mounts. Also, the Optisan Viper is a rather large and heavy scope with 30mm tube so perhaps this was the issue rather than the mount.

Am I over-thinking this?
Well.....whatever works for you (one piece mount or two piece mount) is fine if the scope can be positioned with a good eye relief, the scope fits, and it holds the scope without shifting or damage!

[SpringerForever]

What rifle are you using?  A one-piece mount is better on a rifle that has more recoil.  The two-piece work well on lightly recoiling guns.

Why?

I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. :-) But that seems to be the consensus in most AG forums & I can't find anything online to provide support for that 'opinion'.

I just find it hard to believe that a 1pc mount will make any sort of difference in scope longevity. The scope is still being subjected to the same forces with the only difference being that the mounts are connected. Obviously. As I see it, the 'sensitive' part of scope, it's center, is still being stressed the same whether the scope is mounted in 2pc or 1pc rings.

Have there been any actual, fairly rigorous, studies in support of the 1pc mount over the 2pc mount?

[SpringerForever]

On my Hatsan Mod 125 Sniper .25s a 1pc mount actually offers more adjustability than a 2pc mount.

Another advantage of 1pc mounts is that they allow pretty easy scope swapping from rifle to rifle.

[Regulatori]

What rifle are you using?  A one-piece mount is better on a rifle that has more recoil.  The two-piece work well on lightly recoiling guns.

Why?

I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. :-) But that seems to be the consensus in most AG forums & I can't find anything online to provide support for that 'opinion'.

I just find it hard to believe that a 1pc mount will make any sort of difference in scope longevity. The scope is still being subjected to the same forces with the only difference being that the mounts are connected. Obviously. As I see it, the 'sensitive' part of scope, it's center, is still being stressed the same whether the scope is mounted in 2pc or 1pc rings.

Have there been any actual, fairly rigorous, studies in support of the 1pc mount over the 2pc mount?

I'm curious about that too.

I think it would also depend on the base. Are we talking about a 1 vs 2 piece rings on a weaver/picatinny base or dovetail?

[SpringerForever]

What rifle are you using?  A one-piece mount is better on a rifle that has more recoil.  The two-piece work well on lightly recoiling guns.

Why?

I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. :-) But that seems to be the consensus in most AG forums & I can't find anything online to provide support for that 'opinion'.

I just find it hard to believe that a 1pc mount will make any sort of difference in scope longevity. The scope is still being subjected to the same forces with the only difference being that the mounts are connected. Obviously. As I see it, the 'sensitive' part of scope, it's center, is still being stressed the same whether the scope is mounted in 2pc or 1pc rings.

Have there been any actual, fairly rigorous, studies in support of the 1pc mount over the 2pc mount?

I'm curious about that too.

I think it would also depend on the base. Are we talking about a 1 vs 2 piece rings on a weaver/picatinny base or dovetail?

I'm not seeing how the type of mount makes any difference? But I'm mostly familiar with weaver mounts & have very limited experience with scopes, etc. Less than 2 years. Could you explain?

[Regulatori]

What rifle are you using?  A one-piece mount is better on a rifle that has more recoil.  The two-piece work well on lightly recoiling guns.

Why?

I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. :-) But that seems to be the consensus in most AG forums & I can't find anything online to provide support for that 'opinion'.

I just find it hard to believe that a 1pc mount will make any sort of difference in scope longevity. The scope is still being subjected to the same forces with the only difference being that the mounts are connected. Obviously. As I see it, the 'sensitive' part of scope, it's center, is still being stressed the same whether the scope is mounted in 2pc or 1pc rings.

Have there been any actual, fairly rigorous, studies in support of the 1pc mount over the 2pc mount?

I'm curious about that too.

I think it would also depend on the base. Are we talking about a 1 vs 2 piece rings on a weaver/picatinny base or dovetail?

I'm not seeing how the type of mount makes any difference? But I'm mostly familiar with weaver mounts & have very limited experience with scopes, etc. Less than 2 years. Could you explain?

You have to own both to understand. Weavers/Picatinny mounts always seem to have more clamping power than dovetail rings/mounts....only because of the way the slots engage each other. It's like pinching your fingertips together just using the very tips of your two fingers vs pinching them together using the pads on your fingers...just more surface area. The only time you really come across dovetail mounts anymore is on air rifles and .22s. Just about everything has gone to picatinny mainly because of the clamping power and the notches in the mount...(theoretically) it allows you to remove a scope/red dot and put it back on in the exact same spot.

Just get two scoped rifles side-by-side...one with a picatinny/weaver style and the other with dovetail. Look at the rear of the rings (right below where you would look through the scope)....I always have uneven gaps with dovetails setups no matter how much I mess with the rings. With Weaver/Picatinny, they always clamp solidly with consistent gaps/lot of surface area to grip.   

[mobilehomer]

Picatinny/Weaver mounts have a cross bar that prevents the rings from moving. Two-piece rings work just fine here. Groove mounts rely on clamping pressure to prevent moving. The one-piece mounts have a much greater surface area of clamping on the grooves. These are best for grooved receivers. The scope should not move in the rings of either style with proper torque and fitment.

[SpringerForever]

What rifle are you using?  A one-piece mount is better on a rifle that has more recoil.  The two-piece work well on lightly recoiling guns.

Why?

I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. :-) But that seems to be the consensus in most AG forums & I can't find anything online to provide support for that 'opinion'.

I just find it hard to believe that a 1pc mount will make any sort of difference in scope longevity. The scope is still being subjected to the same forces with the only difference being that the mounts are connected. Obviously. As I see it, the 'sensitive' part of scope, it's center, is still being stressed the same whether the scope is mounted in 2pc or 1pc rings.

Have there been any actual, fairly rigorous, studies in support of the 1pc mount over the 2pc mount?

I'm curious about that too.

I think it would also depend on the base. Are we talking about a 1 vs 2 piece rings on a weaver/picatinny base or dovetail?

I'm not seeing how the type of mount makes any difference? But I'm mostly familiar with weaver mounts & have very limited experience with scopes, etc. Less than 2 years. Could you explain?

You have to own both to understand. Weavers/Picatinny mounts always seem to have more clamping power than dovetail rings/mounts....only because of the way the slots engage each other. It's like pinching your fingertips together just using the very tips of your two fingers vs pinching them together using the pads on your fingers...just more surface area. The only time you really come across dovetail mounts anymore is on air rifles and .22s. Just about everything has gone to picatinny mainly because of the clamping power and the notches in the mount...(theoretically) it allows you to remove a scope/red dot and put it back on in the exact same spot.

Just get two scoped rifles side-by-side...one with a picatinny/weaver style and the other with dovetail. Look at the rear of the rings (right below where you would look through the scope)....I always have uneven gaps with dovetails setups no matter how much I mess with the rings. With Weaver/Picatinny, they always clamp solidly with consistent gaps/lot of surface area to grip.

I understand that picatinny mounts have better clamping than dovetails but I believe that the dovetail has the advantage in terms of POI repeatability in detaching/reattaching a scope/ring combination. At least based on the RWS 48/54/56TH/350 dovetails I've used compared to the Hatsan Mod 125/Mod 155 combo dovetail/picatinny rails. That's if the picatinny rail portion on the Hatsans is used instead of the dovetail. The Hatsan picatinny rail 'cuts' aren't I believe cut with enuf precision for scope mount/dismount/remount repeatability. There's no way I'd trust the POI to have remained the same on the Hatsans but I'd be pretty confident in it doing so with the RWS dovetail.

As for movement ... I know that 1pc dovetail mounts have a stop pin which if set properly also prevents movement like the crossbar of a picatinny ring.

[Regulatori]

Yeah, you really have to compare rifles of equal quality. It's difficult to compare German RWS air rifles to Hatsan...not saying Hatsan's are bad, they just have a different level of workmanship.
It's kind of like comparing a Leupold scope with a 40mm objective and a 1" tube to a Leapers with 50mm objective and a 30mm tube Theoretically the 30mm tube/50mm objective should offer a clearer image since it's better on paper but the Leupold will be a lot better.

The only time I really get a chance to use dovetails is setting up friends/my rim fire rifles or air rifles. I've just always had better luck with Weaver/Picatinny bases/rings. With air rifles though you have to use what's on the gun and don't get a chance to choose. One thing I like about Weaver/Picatinny is the horizontal cut that allows you set the rings down flat...when you tighten the rings to the base, they usually tighten down evenly/lock into place with no fiddling.

[nced]

www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=50809.msg482042#msg482042

This paragraph is especially interesting......
"Spring Guns should use ONE PIECE MOUNTS. Split rings put all the mounting loads thru the rear ring and abuses the scope tube using it as structure. It just thrashes scopes to use split rings on a recoiling gun as the front mount is rarely Stopped. If the two mounts do not share the load the rear one wants lean back and the front one packs back putting your scopes tube in extreme stress. This translates to shifting POI relative to POA and a BENT scope tube"

[SpringerForever]

www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=50809.msg482042#msg482042

This paragraph is especially interesting......
"Spring Guns should use ONE PIECE MOUNTS. Split rings put all the mounting loads thru the rear ring and abuses the scope tube using it as structure. It just thrashes scopes to use split rings on a recoiling gun as the front mount is rarely Stopped. If the two mounts do not share the load the rear one wants lean back and the front one packs back putting your scopes tube in extreme stress. This translates to shifting POI relative to POA and a BENT scope tube"

Thanks nced for providing the link & highlighting the pertinent paragraph.

But ... I'm still not convinced.

Seems to me that the above would apply to dovetail 2pc rings but not to picatinny 2pc rings as they're both stopped. All my rifles have picatinny rails & I've used 2pc picatinny rings exclusively.

No mention of the forward recoil inherent in spring guns & there's a possibility that the scope rings could move forward instead as the ring/picatinny slot isn't a precision interface. But in my experience it hasn't been an issue. FWIW, I really, really tighten the heck out of the base on any 2pc ring setup. And POIs have always been consistent. At least initially. I think if 2pc rings were an issue & actually contributed to inconsistent POIs then that would be self-evident from the start. And my bought used made in Japan Tascos mounted on inexpensive (in the case of the 1.75-5x20, very inexpensive) 2pc picatinny rings are doing just fine.

And I'd really like to see evidence of a bent scope tube. Can't see that happening with an air rifle. Even a super magnum. Unless the scope tube is exceptionally thin which I can believe of really cheap scopes but I believe that doesn't apply to any of the scopes I had issues with. As an example, my Hatsan Mod 125 Sniper .25s in NPSS & Vortex regularly caused every supposedly AG rated scope to fail. I don't mean a catastrophic failure generally but failure to maintain POIs during a shooting session & between shooting sessions. Not to mention horrendously delayed tracking!

In contrast, my very inexpensive non-AO 1.75-5x20 made in Japan Tasco bought off eBay is holding up just fine. As is my AO 4-16x40 made in Japan Tasco, again, bought off eBay. ~210 & ~910 shots respectively, each mounted on one of my two Hatsan Mod 125 Sniper .25s NPSS & Vortex, respectively.

[bubba zanetti]

www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=50809.msg482042#msg482042

This paragraph is especially interesting......
"Spring Guns should use ONE PIECE MOUNTS. Split rings put all the mounting loads thru the rear ring and abuses the scope tube using it as structure. It just thrashes scopes to use split rings on a recoiling gun as the front mount is rarely Stopped. If the two mounts do not share the load the rear one wants lean back and the front one packs back putting your scopes tube in extreme stress. This translates to shifting POI relative to POA and a BENT scope tube"

Thanks nced for providing the link & highlighting the pertinent paragraph.

But ... I'm still not convinced.

Seems to me that the above would apply to dovetail 2pc rings but not to picatinny 2pc rings as they're both stopped. All my rifles have picatinny rails & I've used 2pc picatinny rings exclusively.

No mention of the forward recoil inherent in spring guns & there's a possibility that the scope rings could move forward instead as the ring/picatinny slot isn't a precision interface. But in my experience it hasn't been an issue. FWIW, I really, really tighten the heck out of the base on any 2pc ring setup. And POIs have always been consistent. At least initially. I think if 2pc rings were an issue & actually contributed to inconsistent POIs then that would be self-evident from the start. And my bought used made in Japan Tascos mounted on inexpensive (in the case of the 1.75-5x20, very inexpensive) 2pc picatinny rings are doing just fine.

And I'd really like to see evidence of a bent scope tube. Can't see that happening with an air rifle. Even a super magnum. Unless the scope tube is exceptionally thin which I can believe of really cheap scopes but I believe that doesn't apply to any of the scopes I had issues with. As an example, my Hatsan Mod 125 Sniper .25s in NPSS & Vortex regularly caused every supposedly AG rated scope to fail. I don't mean a catastrophic failure generally but failure to maintain POIs during a shooting session & between shooting sessions. Not to mention horrendously delayed tracking!

In contrast, my very inexpensive non-AO 1.75-5x20 made in Japan Tasco bought off eBay is holding up just fine. As is my AO 4-16x40 made in Japan Tasco, again, bought off eBay. ~210 & ~910 shots respectively, each mounted on one of my two Hatsan Mod 125 Sniper .25s NPSS & Vortex, respectively.

Since body language is not prevalent when we type on the internet, this is not a bust on you as much as something you should be aware of.

Tim McMurray of Mac1 airguns is a third generation air gun smith. He has forgotten more about air guns than you, me and others will probably ever learn about this hobby. Having spent time on the phone with the man, which can be an adventure in itself, every bit of knowledge Tim has shared has advanced my AG shooting skills to another level. Tim has been around and working on AG's his whole life. There are very few theories, power plants, AG's Tim hasn't seen, built, fixed, worked on or designed.

In addition, nced is one of our resident experts when it comes to springer's. Like Tim, he has multiple years of working on, experimenting and shooting a notoriously hard power plant. His knowledge shared on this forum should not be taken lightly.

I say all this to hopefully open a fuller picture. You don't have to be convinced, believe as you choose, but outright rejection on the answer to your query from subject matter experts is what should not be taken lightly.

BZ

[Booger]

www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=50809.msg482042#msg482042

This paragraph is especially interesting......
"Spring Guns should use ONE PIECE MOUNTS. Split rings put all the mounting loads thru the rear ring and abuses the scope tube using it as structure. It just thrashes scopes to use split rings on a recoiling gun as the front mount is rarely Stopped. If the two mounts do not share the load the rear one wants lean back and the front one packs back putting your scopes tube in extreme stress. This translates to shifting POI relative to POA and a BENT scope tube"

Thanks nced for providing the link & highlighting the pertinent paragraph.

But ... I'm still not convinced.

Seems to me that the above would apply to dovetail 2pc rings but not to picatinny 2pc rings as they're both stopped. All my rifles have picatinny rails & I've used 2pc picatinny rings exclusively.

No mention of the forward recoil inherent in spring guns & there's a possibility that the scope rings could move forward instead as the ring/picatinny slot isn't a precision interface. But in my experience it hasn't been an issue. FWIW, I really, really tighten the heck out of the base on any 2pc ring setup. And POIs have always been consistent. At least initially. I think if 2pc rings were an issue & actually contributed to inconsistent POIs then that would be self-evident from the start. And my bought used made in Japan Tascos mounted on inexpensive (in the case of the 1.75-5x20, very inexpensive) 2pc picatinny rings are doing just fine.

And I'd really like to see evidence of a bent scope tube. Can't see that happening with an air rifle. Even a super magnum. Unless the scope tube is exceptionally thin which I can believe of really cheap scopes but I believe that doesn't apply to any of the scopes I had issues with. As an example, my Hatsan Mod 125 Sniper .25s in NPSS & Vortex regularly caused every supposedly AG rated scope to fail. I don't mean a catastrophic failure generally but failure to maintain POIs during a shooting session & between shooting sessions. Not to mention horrendously delayed tracking!

In contrast, my very inexpensive non-AO 1.75-5x20 made in Japan Tasco bought off eBay is holding up just fine. As is my AO 4-16x40 made in Japan Tasco, again, bought off eBay. ~210 & ~910 shots respectively, each mounted on one of my two Hatsan Mod 125 Sniper .25s NPSS & Vortex, respectively.

Since body language is not prevalent when we type on the internet, this is not a bust on you as much as something you should be aware of.

Tim McMurray of Mac1 airguns is a third generation air gun smith. He has forgotten more about air guns than you, me and others will probably ever learn about this hobby. Having spent time on the phone with the man, which can be an adventure in itself, every bit of knowledge Tim has shared has advanced my AG shooting skills to another level. Tim has been around and working on AG's his whole life. There are very few theories, power plants, AG's Tim hasn't seen, built, fixed, worked on or designed.

In addition, nced is one of our resident experts when it comes to springer's. Like Tim, he has multiple years of working on, experimenting and shooting a notoriously hard power plant. His knowledge shared on this forum should not be taken lightly.

I say all this to hopefully open a fuller picture. You don't have to be convinced, believe as you choose, but outright rejection on the answer to your query from subject matter experts is what should not be taken lightly.

BZ

If Ed Canoles says it so I believe him until it is proven different. Ed has taught me a lot by just reading his posts.