Has Anyone EVER got the RWS C-Mount to work on an RWS Airgun?!!?
February 13 2005 at 4:46 PM
KMJ1 (no login) from IP address 68.191.141.142
-
I bought one for my 22cal 54 and it won't fit on my rail nor will it fit on my 177cal 34. What Gives! The stop pin doesn't seem to fit in the hole when the mount is on the rails. Looking down into the hole where the stop pin goes (take it out first) while the mount is on the gun and lined up over any of the holes, the hole in the mount doesn't line up with the hole in the rail in the left/right (side to side, windage)axis. Its offset! I've tried every orientation and cannot seem to make it work. I've tried 4 different c-mounts. Same thing. Does RWS know this? How could they miss something like this? I could use the mount with the substitute pin in it (the one that doesn't fit in the hole) but thats not the point. Anyone ever got this mount to work as advertised?
I have installed 2 of them and have seen a couple more installed. I never had a problem with them.
If it is not the C-mount could it be that the scope rail is defective. Don't know what to tell you other than mine and the ones I saw lined up perfectly even if you turned them around around end for end they still lined up for me. Sorry I could not be of more help.
Doug
The ones that have not lined up have the been the B-Square copies of the RWS. Both, steel and aluminum.
1.- Are you sure you have an RWS mount?
2.- Are you sure that the scope rail holes are centered?
Look down this forum, about 5 months ago, I posted step by step instructions but they do not provide for defective rails or bases, since you have tried several bases I would conclude that the rail is to blame.
Sorry, but cannot add much more to what has already been said.
I have tried the c-mount on 2 different guns, my 34 & 54 & neither fit. The mounts came in rws plastic package with rws labeling. I tried 2 different mounts that look identical. I ordered both from Cabelas. The locking pin on both mounts would not drop into the hole on either guns. They seem to be off in the left/right direction. The mounts appear to be made of aluminum.
Is their anyway to tell if they are b-square or rws visually?
B-square has a proprietary technology that splits the rings at a point lower than the half of the circumference. They feel this is better.
For all I know it is.
Problem is (and I had already spoken about this with B-Square's Jerry Joyner at the 2002 SHOT Show) their measurements are NOT spot on, my complaint was mainly axial, not lateral like yours and for all I knew they had already corrected them. Sorry to say so, I generally praise well B-Square's products (especially the Talon frame); but on this one they have messed up on two fronts: 1.- those mounts really need to be made completely of steel, and 2.- the face of the locating grub screws needs to be reduced to a cylinder, not the conical shape all grub screws have...
There is ONE thing you could do before complaining really seriously to B-Square c.c.p. RWS:
Invert the side which closes on the rail.
If you look at your mounts, the bottom rail has two unequal "halves", the slim "half" (right "half" on the Cabela's picture you so kindly posted) is the closing/moving part. If this was inadvertently put upside down, the distance between dovetail's sides may have changed quite a lot, thereby throwing off your left/right alignment.
Maybe you inadvertently put it upside down, maybe the Texican Señorita that puts these together at the plant was in "her days" and put it upside down, ¿who knows? It's a far fetched possibility, but it could happen.
If, after upturning the moving side you still do not get good results, Jerry's E-Mail is:
jjoyner@b-square.com
Write to him, send him pictures of the mount in its place that show the misalignment you tell us about. If you could post the pictures here we could all see the problem.
From reading the above posts there's obviously two different models of the "C" mount. The five I have been looking at are all steel in construction. I checked one to see how it was manufactured, it is steel and stamped "RWS" on the rail clamp.
I received several negative comments about these mounts on another airgun chat site. Could these all be the aluminum/steel type they are talking about? I never thought to ask till now. Obviously there are people on here who have had good results with the "C" mount with a little thread lock and patience, like the Beeman 5039's.
Two of the negative comments were in regards to the rings on the "C" mount tend to score or "pinch" the scope tube. This has to be an alignment problem front to rear, 1" ring hole being off, or user error in set up.
From what I've seen of their design, setting them up in an order that doesn't allow the scope to find its relaxed seating in the lower rings could cause this problem, i.e., locking all the adjustment set screws tight, then mounting the scope and tightening the upper rings. I can see where this could cause a problem.
I usually lapp rings with valve compound before I put even an inexpensive scope in them. Can't hurt, seems to help avoid ring marks and give better surface contact area.
I was ready to drop the idea of the "C" mounts but now there is more to learn about the two different types under the same model heading. Seems the older units are aluminum and steel, new ones, all steel. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Problem is there seems to be 3 generations of RWS mounts:
The really old ones (made completely of steel in Korea)
The intermediately old ones that are aluminum and steel (made by B-Square)
The really new ones made of steel (also by B-Square)
The real difference is how the scope rings "float" in the base. In the original ones, the scope rings had an hourglass shaped center pin that would move sideways to correct windage and to center the scope above the bore. These are the ones I can vouch for, when properly installed they will stand up to the Diana's recoil forces.
In the B-Square ones, the rings' bottom "halves" are affixed with conically faced set screws (to compensate for droop) to a post that screws into split collars that are moved sideways by conically faced screws. This in effect creates a Cardanic suspension that can compensate any misalignment, but that is not terribly strong.
The real deal is not so much the material, but the real design principles at play.