Product Warning: Leatherwood AR15/M16 Scope Mount

MAD DOG · May 3, 1999, 10:37 AM

I got one of these in trade two days ago.
It was brand new, still in the bag.

This is easily the worst, most poorly made scope mount I have ever had the gross dissatisfaction of owning. I will not own it long.
To wit:
It does not fit the rifle, because it was machined improperly. The recess that should fit over the gas tube is out of position, and the mold seam's unremoved flash interferes with the fit as well.

The casting is of extremely low quality. it has flash and spotting marks all over it, and the seams from the mold halves are very uneven. the ejector pin spotting is so bad as to be unbelievable, They are surrounded by flash, and are up to .040" deep.

The slots for the scope rings are machined so badly as to be unusable. They are so far out of tolerance that they appear to have been done by a palsy victim using a dull hacksaw.

I strongly recommend against this extremely bad product.

Art Eatman · May 3, 1999, 09:55 PM

Don't weasel around, tell us what you really think!

And thanks for the specifics in your warning. I guess one of the things I like about this site is that most posters give reasons for their opinions/beliefs...

Destructo6 · May 3, 1999, 11:47 PM

Yeah, I wish we could get a product review like that in any gun magazine!

MAD DOG · May 4, 1999, 07:12 PM

The reason you (almost) never see a review like that in a magazine is that they rely entirely on advertising to stay in business.
The subscriptions and news stand sales are just the frosting on the cake.
Most advertisers will not patronize publications that are not suitably bereft of ethics, as far as reviews go.
You will note that the more ad dollars that are spent, the more ink they will get review wise, and the more glowing the reviews will be, even if the product is obviously crap.
Witness the love affair between all of the gun rags, and Smith & Wesson. Their Sigma
(or is it Smegma?) pistols are probably the worst guns that wholesale for over $100.00 produced today, but when was the last time you heard Smith & Wesson expert Wiley Clapp or one of his brown nosed contemporaries bad mouth them, even if it was richly justified?

The notable exception is SWAT magazine, run by Denny Hansen. If a product is a P.O.S., he will tell you it is.
They lost their Berretta advertising because he described the FP-1200 shotgun as "designed by Chimpanzees, for use by Gorillas."

Rock on, Denny!

My company is no longer advertising in many magazines due to their total lack of credibility, most notably the knife magazines. You think gun rags are bad, try wading through the crap they foist off as journalism in knifedom. Bleeeeccchh.

Mike Spight · May 6, 1999, 04:59 PM

MAD DOG: I agree totally with what you're saying about gun rags. About the only other thing I've ever looked at that seemed remotely objective was GUN TESTS (I think that is the name). It's published in Florida and they accept no advertising. Are you familiar with it and what do you think of their reviews?

MAD DOG · May 7, 1999, 05:45 PM

I am familiar with it, and actually pay money to read it. I subscribe, and so should you.
They are pretty good about doing serious testing, and slamming the crap or praising the good stuff. If it is somewhere in the middle, they will tell you that, too.
I do not always agree with everything they say, but they are close enough often enough to maintain my respect for their efforts.

The fact that they take no advertising $$, as well as buy their guns off the rack at the local gunstore, is refreshing, and aids their credibility immensely.

Cheapo · May 9, 1999, 12:51 AM

I have trusted Soldier of Fortune in the past. Way back, they reviewed an 18-round wondernine (double column, double-feed design) that they absolutely savaged as a "jammamatic" in their pages. On photo showed the author holding the POS by the slide (butt would have been used like a hammer head if wanted), arm cocked back, ready to throw it away!

Don't read it as often any more. Since they lost their shirts to that strangely anti-FIRST Amendment lawsuit, don't know if they have sunk closer to the level of the typical gun rag.

The American Rifleman tends to run pretty reliable tests, too. Just not enough feature-length jobs. But they make up for it with REAL T&Eval pieces like the recent ones on cryo barrel treatments and moly bullets.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

May 3, 1999, 10:37 AM	#1
MAD DOG Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 1998 Location: Arizona. Posts: 853	I got one of these in trade two days ago. It was brand new, still in the bag. This is easily the worst, most poorly made scope mount I have ever had the gross dissatisfaction of owning. I will not own it long. To wit: It does not fit the rifle, because it was machined improperly. The recess that should fit over the gas tube is out of position, and the mold seam's unremoved flash interferes with the fit as well. The casting is of extremely low quality. it has flash and spotting marks all over it, and the seams from the mold halves are very uneven. the ejector pin spotting is so bad as to be unbelievable, They are surrounded by flash, and are up to .040" deep. The slots for the scope rings are machined so badly as to be unusable. They are so far out of tolerance that they appear to have been done by a palsy victim using a dull hacksaw. I strongly recommend against this extremely bad product.

May 3, 1999, 09:55 PM	#2
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	Don't weasel around, tell us what you really think! And thanks for the specifics in your warning. I guess one of the things I like about this site is that most posters give reasons for their opinions/beliefs...

May 3, 1999, 11:47 PM	#3
Destructo6 Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 1999 Location: Nogales, AZ USA Posts: 4,000	Yeah, I wish we could get a product review like that in any gun magazine!

May 4, 1999, 07:12 PM	#4
MAD DOG Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 1998 Location: Arizona. Posts: 853	The reason you (almost) never see a review like that in a magazine is that they rely entirely on advertising to stay in business. The subscriptions and news stand sales are just the frosting on the cake. Most advertisers will not patronize publications that are not suitably bereft of ethics, as far as reviews go. You will note that the more ad dollars that are spent, the more ink they will get review wise, and the more glowing the reviews will be, even if the product is obviously crap. Witness the love affair between all of the gun rags, and Smith & Wesson. Their Sigma (or is it Smegma?) pistols are probably the worst guns that wholesale for over $100.00 produced today, but when was the last time you heard Smith & Wesson expert Wiley Clapp or one of his brown nosed contemporaries bad mouth them, even if it was richly justified? The notable exception is SWAT magazine, run by Denny Hansen. If a product is a P.O.S., he will tell you it is. They lost their Berretta advertising because he described the FP-1200 shotgun as "designed by Chimpanzees, for use by Gorillas." Rock on, Denny! My company is no longer advertising in many magazines due to their total lack of credibility, most notably the knife magazines. You think gun rags are bad, try wading through the crap they foist off as journalism in knifedom. Bleeeeccchh.

May 6, 1999, 04:59 PM	#5
Mike Spight Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 1999 Location: Leavenworth, KS USA Posts: 606	MAD DOG: I agree totally with what you're saying about gun rags. About the only other thing I've ever looked at that seemed remotely objective was GUN TESTS (I think that is the name). It's published in Florida and they accept no advertising. Are you familiar with it and what do you think of their reviews?

May 7, 1999, 05:45 PM	#6
MAD DOG Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 1998 Location: Arizona. Posts: 853	I am familiar with it, and actually pay money to read it. I subscribe, and so should you. They are pretty good about doing serious testing, and slamming the crap or praising the good stuff. If it is somewhere in the middle, they will tell you that, too. I do not always agree with everything they say, but they are close enough often enough to maintain my respect for their efforts. The fact that they take no advertising $$, as well as buy their guns off the rack at the local gunstore, is refreshing, and aids their credibility immensely.

May 9, 1999, 12:51 AM	#7
Cheapo Senior Member Join Date: November 19, 1998 Posts: 986	I have trusted Soldier of Fortune in the past. Way back, they reviewed an 18-round wondernine (double column, double-feed design) that they absolutely savaged as a "jammamatic" in their pages. On photo showed the author holding the POS by the slide (butt would have been used like a hammer head if wanted), arm cocked back, ready to throw it away! Don't read it as often any more. Since they lost their shirts to that strangely anti-FIRST Amendment lawsuit, don't know if they have sunk closer to the level of the typical gun rag. The American Rifleman tends to run pretty reliable tests, too. Just not enough feature-length jobs. But they make up for it with REAL T&Eval pieces like the recent ones on cryo barrel treatments and moly bullets.