PTR 91: Looking for a Good Low-Rise Scope Mount

[Mortimain]

Hello all, I've finally decided to add a Redfield to my PTR 91, so now I have to enter into the great debate on low rise scope mounts. I've narrowed it down to http://www.hkparts.net/shop/pc/HK-Low-Profile-Scope-Mount-For-HK-Rifle-Pistols-p762.htm and http://www.robertrtg.com/hklowprofilescopemount.html. I normally shy away from most UTG products, but I have come to respect the merchandise that Mr. Johnson carries and I have seen some nice reviews for this item in particular, so It has earned some consideration. That being said, does anyone know how these two mounts stack up to one another? Many thanks all.

[tirod]

The HK proprietary mount system doesn't leave much choice. I ran a clone claw mount in the day with a first gen Aimpoint. That worked ok, likely because the focal centerline was low enough. Before that I ran the square tube clamp on, which was effectively no different than what is linked.

UTG isn't known for high precision or harder alloys, the best you can expect is that it will work once screwed on. For hunting or range use it should survive, for actual duty, not possible. The original claw mount design and the HK sighting system aren't optic friendly as much as simply an accommodation. The average soldier got used to the iron sights, that's all they got.

Note the sniper version of the 91 with large bell scopes also got a cheek riser to level things out. That's the reality of the design.

[GONIF]

Considering that the way it mounts on to the sheet mtl receiver and the ho hum accuracy of the rifle ,the UTG mount that RTG sell is going to work as good as any . Of corse it will not be up to the standards of most HK snobs .

[AK103K]

Ive seen a couple of rifes that had their receivers marred, chewed, and screwed up because of those screw down mounts. As was mentioned, UTG isnt the best quality, and from my experience with some of their stuff, I basically rate them as "airsoft".

I've used both the HK and ARMS caw mounts with good results. I preferred the ARMS over the HK's, as they were more versatile and sat lower. Both were repeatable for zero when removed and replaced with no issues. My favorite scope for my 91's was a Beeman SS-3 1-4x. Tiny little scope that worked great. The scope and mount would fit in a coat pocket.

I never felt the need for a cheek piece on the 91's when using the ARMS mount. It was low enough it wasnt needed. You just slide your cheek up the "ramp" on the stock a little and it was fine. Now the HK factory mounts were way to high for me, and kept the scope, and your head, back to far for any kind of reasonable shooting.

..and the ho hum accuracy of the rifle..
I dont know how the PTR's are accuracy wise, but my HKs were as or more accurate than my standard grade M1As.

[hodaka]

I tried the UTG low mount on my PTR and was not satisfied. It scared the receiver and one of the allen screws eventually stripped. I replaced it with the UTG claw mount and was very satisfied and it was only about $50 if I recall. Certainly not the highest quality but a good value in my opinion.

Regarding accuracy, my PTR was okay (1-2") but I had already spoiled myself with a DPMS LR-308 so I was never completely satisfied. I ended up selling it. I had mounted a Bushnell 4200 4-10X on it.