Scope Mount Location

[XUSNORDIE]

Throwing this out there for thoughts from those who prefer to scope hunting revolvers.

When scoping your revolver. Do you prefer a scope mounted on barrel, or top strap? (IE: Think of the integral mounts on Super Blackhawk Hunter vs Super Redhawk).

I have GP's with red dot optics on top strap. I have a SBH that at one time had a scope mount, but decided I liked it better with iron sights and put Bowens on it.

I understand the forward "scout" scope mount concept on rifles....but what are the pro's and cons of a top strap vs barrel mount on revolvers.

 

[onthehunt]

I believe it all comes down to available space on the top strap. The SRH is more of a half top strap, half barrel mount. I prefer the barrel mount due to scope objective bell position. The hammer is not covered. The majority of top strap scope mounts will block the top of the hammer with the scope. I also like the additional weight forward with a barrel mount scope. It helps with recoil. The negatives of a barrel mount would be additional recoil stress on the optic/mounts and finding a holster that actually works with said barrel mounted optic.

 

[XUSNORDIE]

Both integral mounts are on the top strap of the Super Redhawk. But I understand what you are saying. I guess the rear sight/ears do take up space, and have to be removed for aftermarket mounts/plates.

I tend to agree with the possibility of recoil damaging some scopes if mounted on barrel. I have no experience there.

I use chest rigs for my hunting handguns. Have one for the SBH w/scope. Somewhere. No problems finding one for my GP with optic (Ultra Dot).

 

[bearskinner]

I have hunted with scoped revolvers for decades, as my primary hunting weapon, from small to heavy recoiling boomers. I have had every SBH and SRH in standard and hunter configuration, as a scoped revolver, along with every Freedom arms, and blackhawks. So I have tried dozens, literally, and now only use SA's with Leupold dual dovetail mounts and rings, on the frame, not the barrel. I believe it's all about balance, and how the revolver points naturally in your hand. I shoot a lot one handed. It's just what I do. Forward scopes are nose heavy, BFR's (to me) feel nose heavy. I have many DA's but no more scoped DA's. They make fantastic belt guns, with good open sights. I think a 7.5-10" FA83, scoped, is about as good as it gets.
This is just my opinion, and how revolvers fit my hand. Everyone likes something different. One thing, all my scoped guns look the same and balance (feel) the same, which suits my needs perfectly.

 

[contender]

I too have decades of using a scoped handgun for hunting. Much of what I've used is the T/C Contender,, which is basically a barreled action. So the scope mounts where the rear sight is mounted. (Of course you remove the rear sight assy.)
But I also have several scoped revolvers & many of them,, use a frame mounted scope set up. Well, there are also exceptions to that too.
The Hawkeye handgun is D&Ted from the factory in the barrel.
Redhawks using Ruger rings have scope ring cuts in the top rib section of the barrel.

Both have worked quite well for me over the decades.

I guess it's up to your choice of handguns,, AND how it balances in YOUR hands & what YOU prefer.

 

[s4s4u]

I had a 41 SBH Hunter with the rings on the barrel, tried a scope on it and immediately took it off. I went to a SRH with the rings on the receiver and then later added a Weigand mount to the strap of my Bisley 45. The balance is where it's at.

 

[GypsmJim]

I hunted with a 7 1/2" .45 Redhawk for a few years. It had the integral scope mount grooves on the barrel. It was accurate enough, but the balance was not right.

I removed the scope and mounted a red dot on a Weigand base on top of the top strap in place of the real sight. Big improvement.

 

[rkrcpa]

I've been using a scope for decades also and have always mounted the scope over the frame where the rear sight would reside.