Pivot Mounts Vs. Claw Mounts

[thriller]

 

[thriller]

First morning of whitetail season in alabama and I get to take the new toy out for a spin.

 

[zephyr]

Would also recommend Mark Petersen at NECG

 

[Red Leg]

The classic way would be the claw Mount, but problem is to get an experienced gunmaker, who is able to do it in a right way.
Nowadays the Pivot Mount gives you the possibility to change the riflescope without great efforts, EAW or Recknagel have
good parts for this Pivot Mount . If I want to mount a new Drilling - not a piece for collectors - I would take the Pivot Mount.
Cheaper and from the view of technique the better way.

Mannlicher

A pivot mount will not fit on a drilling. And if you could somehow solder one on, you could no longer use the open sights.

 

[Red Leg]

The question is largely a false choice. For some applications the claw is the best solution, for others, a pivot mount. On a bolt action, a claw will work, but requires a tailored front ring (around the bell of the scope or a rail equipped scope to mount the sight low enough). A pivot allows much more flexibility, and is hence a better choice for that bolt gun. On a side x side, double rifle or drilling, a claw mount, or as I noted earlier, the Kriefhoff sliding mount is the only practical solution. An exception is Blaser which builds a platform for their proprietary mounts on their doubles which does not affect the open sights. And Thriller, I would scope that rifle. Drillings are typically extremely accurate. All three of mine are MOA rifles (two 8x57r and a 6.5x57r), and it would be a shame not to take advantage of the range capability of the 30-06. But you want it to be detachable so you can also use it like a shotgun.

 

[thriller]

I need to get some photos together, but the gun is back and i have claw mounts on mine and my fathers has pivot mounts on his. the base profiles from the side on the two guns are identical.

 

[rookhawk]

Quick direct answer as there have been lots of indirect answers.

Pivots introduce too much mechanical leverage on the rib of a SxS / Drilling configured weapon. Claws are the way.

German Claws fitted to the action: $2500-$2700.
Holland & Holland Claws fitted to the action: $3000-$3500.

Mark at NECG can do the work.
JJ Peredoux can do the work.
Most others that say they can do the work cannot.

 

[thriller]

im telling you i have both on two differnet guns and you cant tell the difference until the scopes are removed

 

[rookhawk]

Perhaps. Lots of strange things out there. Nonetheless, from a purist/proper standpoint, claw mounts on guns with brazed ribs is the norm. You don't want to apply mechanical leverage to a brazed rib, hence a smith worth his salt won't do that. A claw doesn't create any significant forces on the rib as it is applied or removed.

Not trying to win an argument, just trying to answer the OP question of what kind and what cost for a drilling to get a proper mount.

 

[Red Leg]

Perhaps. Lots of strange things out there. Nonetheless, from a purist/proper standpoint, claw mounts on guns with brazed ribs is the norm. You don't want to apply mechanical leverage to a brazed rib, hence a smith worth his salt won't do that. A claw doesn't create any significant forces on the rib as it is applied or removed.

Not trying to win an argument, just trying to answer the OP question of what kind and what cost for a drilling to get a proper mount.

Rookhawk has this exactly correct from my experience. JJ can likely get the claws in place a tad cheaper - but they are a very special thing and perfectly designed for a double. They will also still be in place and working perfectly long after all of us on this forum and our children are well moldered in our graves.

 

[Aaron N]

Reviving a dead thread here, but why do claw mounts so often have the front ring around the bell? Is it due to poor eye relief of older scopes requiring them to be set back closer to the shooter?

Also, how do Smithson mounts compare to pivots, are they worth the extra money if money wasn’t an object?

 

[Red Leg]

Reviving a dead thread here, but why do claw mounts so often have the front ring around the bell? Is it due to poor eye relief of older scopes requiring them to be set back closer to the shooter?

Also, how do Smithson mounts compare to pivots, are they worth the extra money if money wasn’t an object?

No. It is because the scope tips upward rear to front to dismount. Putting front rings in the normal position would require the scope to be mounted extremely high (as in inches). Today, the best solution is a straight tube. Special (expensive) fitting to the objective is not required making the installation far less cost prohibitive.

 

[Aaron N]

No. It is because the scope tips upward rear to front to dismount. Putting front rings in the normal position would require the scope to be mounted extremely high (as in inches). Today, the best solution is a straight tube. Special (expensive) fitting to the objective is not required making the installation far less cost prohibitive.

Makes sense!

There’s always an answer to be found on here