Aldis Brothers 1916 scope

[Surpmil]

What I was actually emphasising Rob was not the mechanics/slipping of the thing but more the fact that whether the hooks are forward or rear facing has no effect on the robustness of the mount

Not sure I follow there Peter. When I think of "robustness" I think of the extent to which the mounts are 'linear', rigid, close fitting, and transfer the forces between the rifle and scope without developing play over time, while equalizing as far as possible the load between front and rear rings/bases.

The offset front point of attachment also seems inherently unsound to my eye: the forces are multiplied by the leverage created by the offset of the front base. The front ring must have taken almost all the load at that point. Something else H&H avoided.

The designer of that 'hook and peg' system obviously believed that the bulk of the forces would be transferred through the rear ring and base it seems to me. The hook as made, does almost nothing to control the initial movement as it is open on the wrong side.

[Simon]

A nice video clip that demonstrates the forces acting upon a scope and mount under recoil, yes I know its a .50 but the Physics is the same.

[Surpmil]

Pretty shocking how even a setup like that flexes! Seems David Lloyd was onto something with his massive scope mounts!



Another vid here; watch to the end.

[Peter Laidler]

Optical illusion caused by the optical abberration the curvature of the lenses imparts upon the image as it reaches the edge of the compound curvatures (thickness and roundness). The eye is not quick enough to absorb the changes. Look through a telescope at the far edges of the lenses to see what I mean. That's why your eye should concentrate through the centre 1/3rd