Curious if anyone's ever installed a Special Interest Arms scope mount on their #4

[RangeRover]

x2 on the Fulton's mount. Got mine from Brian. Very easy to mount and rock solid.

[SDWriter]

x2 on the Fulton's mount. Got mine from Brian. Very easy to mount and rock solid.

Thanks. I'm sure it is. I like that it's steel. I don't suppose you could take a pic similar to mine above, of the mount on the rifle from directly behind, and post it here?

[SDWriter]

I’ve fitted them,it’s no drama. The receiver ring is soft and drills very easily.

Hi again Tbone. Just have a follow-up question. To confirm, the receiver ring is a softer material than the steel on the side of the receiver? I assumed it was all one piece of the same material. Just asking because I've been following this thread below, where the OP is having difficulty drilling for his #4T 'repro'. In here you confirm that the side is a bit tricky to machine correctly due to hardness.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=63726

I still haven't decided if I want to go this route or get a Fulton and Son mount. Both have their appeal. I don't want a Fulton if the rail is offset to the right, as it is with my ATI. No one has been able to confirm this one way or the other.

[Brian Dick]

The Fulton mount isn't offset to the right. I told you that it has some play in the jam nut so that you can adjust it with all the screws loose, collimate your centralized scope and then tighten it all down using Loctite 242. The ATI is cheap junk, always was and always will be. So is the S&K, B-square, Cad Tech, and every other one I can't remember. I've been flogging these items for many years. I'm brutally honest and to the point. Pay the price and you'll only have to do it once. The Armalon is good too but made of aluminum. Better for a carbine or scout rifle if weight is a factor and you're using a lightweight scope. The steel Fulton Picatinny rail is rock solid when installed properly. I've sold more than I can count over the years to serious folks and never had a complaint.

[SDWriter]

The Fulton mount isn't offset to the right.

Thanks! This is the first plain-English answer to my question. I think your previous reply of "It collimates easily..." wasn't really an answer sufficient to my... let's say, less technical understanding of the subject. From what I know at this point, collimation just means that the scope axis and bore axis are in perfect parallel. But since a scope wouldn't need to be at exactly 12 oclock for this to be true; could be just as parallel at 11:30, 12:10, or 8:00, that info still left me unsatisfied. Until now.

I am sure that the ATI is made less expensively and is less well designed. Making it the way they did is probably easier to do and they can start with a smaller piece of metal. To do this "right" I assume that Fulton starts with a wider piece and just needs to machine off a bit from the left side.

I just whipped up a crude modification to my earlier image to show, in case anyone is interested, what I'm talking about with all this centering over the bore blah blah blah.

Attachment 90987

[SDWriter]

I hope it's not bad form to share a pic that I found on another board. Here is one of the better pics I have found of the Fulton mount in use. I do like the positioning a lot. So many of the cheaper ones are kind of stubby. First modern mount I ever saw for the #4 was the CAD Tecknik (however it's spelled). That one had the scope sitting too high and too far back for my taste.

I find it interesting that this Fulton's owner has his scope sitting all the way to the rear. Must just work best for his comfort and needs, and eye relief of course. It has me thinking that perhaps the SIA mount's rail might actually be a skosh farther forward than ideal for some shooters/scopes, since its rail is positioned entirely forward of the charger bridge.

Attachment 91110

[Surpmil]

The Armalon does have the advantage that the scope does not need to be removed from the base to fit or remove the base from the rifle.

The ideal no-drill No.4 Rifle mount is yet to be built IMO.

Sounds like Titanium would be the ideal material, but for the price.

[SDWriter]

The Armalon does have the advantage that the scope does not need to be removed from the base to fit or remove the base from the rifle.

I'd assumes that Armalon is functionally identical to the Fulton. But could you maybe rephrase the above? I don't really get what you are saying.

And yes, a titanium mount would be sweet. But oh, the price it would cost.

[Surpmil]

Here you see the placement of the screw on the Armalon mount which controls the locking segment.



Unlike the S&K and the replicas thereof, the scope does not need to be taken on or off the base to fit or remove the base from the rifle, as the photos make clear, I think.

[SDWriter]

Thanks Surpmil. That image does clarify what you were saying quite nicely.

Might just be an interesting footnote for me though. From what I understand, the Armalons are hard to come by in the USA.