Area 419 Scope Mounts - The Best Scope Mounts Available... Period.

[@JeffHoman-eu2zb]

When Summer and I went over my 6GT build, we went with the Area 419 mount.

[@Cyborg-911]

Summer is a smart woman!

[@paramounttactical]

🤫 don’t feed her ego!

[@jacobdeem8499]

I bought mine a month ago and I never think about it which is just how I like it. Works very well

[@AF-O6]

I use Spuhr, Seekins, ARC, and Tier One (for airguns). They all work fine on my guns (.308 Win and below), but heretofore the ARC just work really well. Torquing doesn’t cause the scope to cant, and I’ve yet to have ARC scratch a tube. Still, you are credible, and make me want to give these a try! I appreciate your in-depth technical lessons (and your political and social commentary vids as well).

[@paramounttactical]

@@AF-O6 🫡 thanks for watching! -Gary

[@fattigla]

Those alignment pins are awesome. I've been wanting something like this for years!

[@MattDonkin430]

I was just looking into what I was going to use for my Wife's MPA / Zeiss LRP3 combo...I think I might go with the Area 419... really can't go wrong with anything from these guys though.

[@Cyborg-911]

Great video Gary, you covered everything as far as I know! Excellent job! Summer taught you well!! Ha! Ha! Ha!

[@KevinWood44]

I love Area 419, they make incredible stuff. Quality is unmatched. OK now I'm gonna be that guy. This will piss people off but I don't care.... I am all for a company recouping some R&D costs....when justified. When a company makes a BRAND NEW product, which required lots of testing, months and months of R&D, etc. However, scope mounts aren't new. For the most part, height and diameter are already determined (1.5 or 1.93 & 30mm or 34mm) you just need design a style, CNC the parts and anodize. That said, lets use Badger as an example..... $320 mount $120 diving board $50 for the Tiny J Arm piece $100 for the 12 o'clock ring $40 red dot plate $100 for a level You are likely $600+ invested into a SCOPE MOUNT by the time you're done. OR you can get the clone WITH the J-arm and plate included for $65 (which is indistinguishable from the original) from China. Now NOBODY wants to buy from China, but we also don't want to need LUBE to buy a scope mount. So here is my question....what is the mark up on these products? How can a Chinese company make an identical part at 20% of the price?? Am I really paying $300 towards R&D every time I buy a mount?? I'm a capitalist, I am all for a company making money, but help me understand how SCOPE MOUNTS have all gotten to the point that nearly $400 is just accepted? Shooting sports have become to the new golf, insanely high mark ups that take advantage of hard working people. Eventually this will backfire and the hobby will become too expensive for every day people.

[@jasonsponsler21]

Well hell, I guess I’ll go with one of these for my build

[@Fair-to-Middling_Marksman]

I agree the best, I have three now.

[@jrbullock]

I have their match rings and LOVE them.

[@paramounttactical]

@@jrbullock Area 419 = Top Tier Quality

[@tyrelhunter6529]

Man I am putting together a dream build AR10 and every time you post I have to go messing with it! I'll be getting the ZCO 527 and was waiting for you guys to get the zco cantilever on your website but now these area 419s have my attention! Only things stopping me is the 419 is almost double the weight(around 10oz difference) and I do like having matching branding for scope/mount if possible.

[@paramounttactical]

@tyrelhunter6529 I just read this and I was thinking there’s no possible way the Area 419 weighs 1.5lbs as listed on the waste. I also didn’t think the Area 419 weighed more than the ZCO. So, I went and weighed them both at 10:15pm…. The Area 419 weighs 8.3 oz. The ZCO weighs 10.3 oz. I’m not sure where Area 419 got those numbers but I will point it out to them tomorrow. Both are great options and you can’t go wrong with either.

[@tyrelhunter6529]

@@paramounttactical I really appreciate that and I'm sure they will too so they can fix that! It seemed odd to me that it weighed that much more with less bulk. I think I will end up going the area 419 route now that I know this. With weight being similar I'd rather have that little bit of space on the back for my electronic level as well! Like you said can't go wrong with either, both badass companies! I appreciate all you do for the 2A community!

[@area419]

The size and weight you see in one section of the website that are FAR too heavy/large are shipping dimensions that allow customers to get real-time shipping rates on their orders, so what you were seeing was the mount in the case they ship in. I'll make sure we get some specific weights for these added to that product description.

[@robertosborne1753]

One thing with that first test; remember the rappel ropes having a working load and a static load? Scope mounts dont come under that constant type of force like that; they're shocked, like the 2nd test did. Though, for todays scope mounts i dont feel their clamping force is what needs improvement; I feel the concentricity is what needs to be focused on. I do realize that if the rings are totally concentric on the inside, the clamping force is more evenly distributed, but what I mean is concentricity from front ring to back ring, or the straightness of the pic rails when using individual rings. I still see individual rings being mounted on decent pic rails lose concentricity after being torqued to the rail. That's a big bummer to find that out AFTER you've torqued the scope caps only to find out the parallax knob is now binding. These one piece mounts do help to mitigate that problem though, and that's why I always try to use them. Are they going to make any QD options do you know?

[@paramounttactical]

@@robertosborne1753 I don’t know but we’ll have Craig from Area 419 on Wednesday for a live podcast and you can ask him yourself. I think grip testing is a roundabout way to test concentricity. If the rings are concentric, that should result in requiring a stronger force to make the optic slip. But your points are valid.

[@robertosborne1753]

@paramounttactical cool, i may try to do that!

[@ShowMeqtrmoa]

Great video, curious what color is that MPA Chassis?

[@paramounttactical]

Blood Red

[@joeyzagari4155]

Love it. Love the match scope rings or unimount. I do question how many high recoil shots starts to induce warping or some creep somewhere through time not withstanding the coefficient of thermal expansion of aluminium on steel receiver. Moreover, 2lb scope with another 1lb or possibly heavier torch or 1lb vortex impact 400 mounted on the diving board atop the front ring seems like a huge amount of force to cope with and I have my concerns about ring distortion or something getting beaten serious. Steel would get thinner material, lower heel in ring, lower one-piece base and stronger and better for that hunter for keeping optic low and coping with stress and heat from sun in the northern states of Australia. And why is incline (either pic rail or one piece base) always 20MOA or something, why can’t it be an even 5 or 10MIL for MIL scopes?

[@area419]

Would you rather the uneven thermal expansion/contraction happen at the pic rail, or on the tube of your optic?

[@joeyzagari4155]

@good reply. Aluminium rings to aluminium scope is probably better there. I put a Murphy precision steel pic rail on top and it’s very thick (10mm) and it doesn’t help to keep things low, furthermore in theory provides more expansion growth than any benefit of stiffening receiver. The next step for user friendliness would be something like a levelling wedge system to level the scope. I sometimes just put a deck of playing cards sandwiched between the pic rail and the underside of scope body, those flat surfaces align quite nicely and usually get the scope perfectly level that way. I’d like to see one piece bases to keep things low as possible in general and my guess is aluminium needs more material to work with. Your indexing details stamped on the parts is a wonderful grace, like torque spec, diameter and height and orientation etc. love it.

[@paramounttactical]

@@joeyzagari4155 Joey, those are great questions and an interesting discussion. Tomorrow (Wed, Nov 27th) we'll have Craig on from Area 419 live at 7pm. So come join us and let's continue this there! We'll be taking questions and reading viewers comments. Thanks, Gary

[@jonramboat9680]

My issue with the bubble level is I can’t see that close now and have to put it as far forward as possible. Looks like if I did that the parallax knob would cover it from view.

[@paramounttactical]

You can put it on the bottom of the mount on the rail clamps and then flip it into the upward position.

[@jonramboat9680]

@ I completely glazed over that. Thanks!

[@johnwalsh7070]

Could we hold off on new stuff until after Christmas in the future!! Now I have to figure out who is getting shorted from my Christmas list so I can get this!!

[@paramounttactical]

@@johnwalsh7070 request denied. Be a man and remortgage your house.

[@jasonsponsler21]

I feel your pain John. But I’m getting a rifle package for my Xmas so everyone is getting shorted

[@6Dasher]

I’d buy one of these if I wasn’t already heavily invested in the Spuhr system lol

[@manuelgervasutti5754]

spuhr is way better lol

[@Ooogs-h1i]

Echo'd. Have one, dropped my 20 pound rifle hard directly on it from about 3 feet, not a scratch and scope held zero. Gives Spuhr a run for their money, although, I do wish they incorporated the base level cut out like spuhr has, at least for their mounts with angle built in. Nothing a set of feeler gauges won't fix but would have been nice.

[@MattDonkin430]

The wedge isn't all that great.. Ive used it and had to re-level the scope after mounting onto my rifle... just because the scope is level to the base, doesn't mean its level to the rifle.

[@Ooogs-h1i]

@@MattDonkin430 I'm specifically talking about mounts with elevation built in. It doesn't matter if the scope is level to the rifle when the mount has elevation built in to it, it only matters that it is level to the mount. If it's level to the rifle but not the mount and there is elevation built into the mount, you are turning elevation into windage. If you level your scope to your mount with elevation built in, get it on the rifle and notice it's not level to the rifle and then change it to be level to the rifle, you are doing the wrong thing.

[@paramounttactical]

☝️💯

[@MattDonkin430]

@@Ooogs-h1i True, I use 0 MOA mounts usually on 20 or 30 MOA rails... Does the job. In my experience wedges don't work too well for that application...

[@stritheor]

I just bought an Audere two weeks ago so I guess this will have to wait for the next build. Is the website on this correct? These things weigh 1.5 lbs (24 Oz.)?

[@paramounttactical]

@@stritheor no. The cantilever mount weighs 8.3 oz and the standard about the same.

[@stritheor]

@paramounttactical whew. That must be shipping weight. They ought to fix that, that weight might terrify some. 😂

[@paramounttactical]

@ already being done. That question came up and after seeing what was listed as the weight I had to go weigh it myself. Area 419 responded to it as well and confirmed it was shipping weight. They’re fixing it.

[@richiefutrell6247]

Go ahead and order the hunter style 30mm rings....

[@jwschroeder804]

Bought it!

[@mymodel6]

If they really wanted to push the innovation boat out, they should take a leaf out of some mountain bike handlebar stem manufacturers book, and make the top clamps be what's called a top close clamp system. Meaning that one side is bolted completely closed, you then just tighten the other side down to the specified torque, so there is only a ring gap on one side, then you never have to worry about even ring gaps ever again...

[@paramounttactical]

@@mymodel6 how would you get the larger ocular lens through the “closed” clamp?

[@mymodel6]

@@paramounttactical No it's still split, but one side bolts completely closed. I can't post links on here but if you Google DMR Defy stem (a cheap but good example), you should see a stem where the top of the clamp has opposing arrows, denoting that those are to be bolted completely closed and to a specified torque. The other side is then torqued leaving a gap. High end UK manufacturer Hope Tech use the same system on some of their stems too. I have one of both, and can honestly say it's the BEST way to do it, much less pissing about measuring gaps. Just want to add that i'm not picking holes in these mounts, they look amazing and I would agree that they're probably class leading right now, but everything can be improved :)

[@paramounttactical]

@@mymodel6 I’ll check it out. The MDT One Piece mounts sort of do that. You tighten one side completely then torque down the other so there’s only ring gap on one side.

[@mymodel6]

@@paramounttactical Oh wow ok, i'll check them out, i honestly didn't think it had ever been done.. :) I got flamed on a forum for suggesting that this clamping method should be incorporated into scope ring tech, it's been used in MTB for years. But all innovations have at least 50% naysayers and pitchfork wavers to start with, i reckon it will catch on eventually, it is easier, more foolproof, even potentially superior in terms of clamping force if made well, and there are no downsides...

[@area419]

This has been done at times, but tends to lead to the optic pitching heavily when tightening it. An example of something near this would be the ARC rings, and that design has some upsides, but no design is without some compromises.

[@madman432000]

Don't like the fixed spacing of the rings, it's also heavier than separate rings on a rail. These seem like rings and rail that clamp onto a rail. Definitely well made mounts but out of my price range.

[@paramounttactical]

@@madman432000 they have match rings as well for those that prefer those. All the same features included. Thanks for watching! -Gary