TargetTalk

While trying out an ultradot equipped Buckmark last weekend, it quickly became obvious why so many older shooters have jumped on the "red dot train". Rather than waste a ton of money reinventing the wheel, I have some questions for those who have gone before.

My pistol - KMK III 512 already drilled and tapped by Ruger with their weaver style rail. I am considering either the simplest 1" Ultradot or the Matchdot.

Most folks seem to advise going to either the Weaver Grand Slam quick release or Leupold QRW rings right off the bat. At Gander Mountain yesterday I was appalled by how heavy the steel Weaver rings were. They must weigh as much as an Ultrdot does by itself. Is there a lighter aluminum ring set that would accomplish the same function?

Are "low rings" appropiate for both the 1" and 30 mm Ultradots?

Thanks for any informed replies,

Hugh

I used the Weaver Quad Lock for a 30 mm Ultradot. Didn't seem too heavy. I think they don't come in low height. I used Medium.

As for ultradots it depends on where you plan on shooting.
If you structly shoot indoors a single dot would be sufficent.
outdoors more than one dot size is better but you could get away with the single dot.
as for 30mm ...its not needed, 1" is fine.
The Matchdot is without a doubt a very nice unit and I would say you really can't go wrong with it but it costs more too.
The ultradots come with rings but there split verticle.
They work I have never seen a reason to take the dot off.
It would most definately change the zero if removed but not not enough to buy other rings.
As for steel rings... Definately not... it weighs around 4-5oz and the steel rings would weigh the same with no added advantage.

Why not just use the rings that come with the UltraDot? For use on a 22 they are more than strong enough, are fairly light weight, and have the advantage of being included in the cost of the dot sight. If you don't like them for some reason you can always replace them later. For a slide mount on a 45 many of us have gone to stronger rings but the recoil with a 22 just shouldn't be enough to cause any problems.

As for which dot to get that is one of those personal preference things. Many swear by the smaller (4 minute) single size dot but I went to the matchdot several years ago and like the choice of larger dot sizes. I find that with a larger dot you don't perceive the natural movement (wobble) of the dot as much so it is easier to maintain good trigger control. The Matchdot is a little heavier though and it sounds like weight might be an issue for you.

Yikes...forgot to sign in originally

clark2245 wrote: and it sounds like weight might be an issue for you.

Clark,

Excellent points ...........while the difference between an Matchdot and basic Ultradot is only .9 oz , I have to think that the steel Weaver rings would add a lot more than that amount extra.

I am a reasonably big strong guy so total weight isn't that big a deal but overkill is overkill.

Isn't one of the prime reasons for going to the Weaver or Leupold rings the ability to pop the Ultradot off for pistol cleaning without losing your zero. I have funny feeling about wacking the barrel free with an Ultradot installed. Got to love those Ruger pistols for disassembly;)

Hugh

Hugh,
I started out with the 30mm as I thought I needed the larger field of view for sustained fire. after about a year I switched to the basic 1" UltraDot. The 1" has pleanty of field of view, is lighter less expensive and there is a much wider variety of rings availible for 1" rather than 30mm. For rings, I have settled on the Weaver 1" Top Mount, low, product #49040. They go on and off quickly and maintain zero very well. They are light weight and I think as low as you possibly can get.

Scott

sciguy191 wrote:Excellent points ...........while the difference between an Matchdot and basic Ultradot is only .9 oz , I have to think that the steel Weaver rings would add a lot more than that amount extra.

I am a reasonably big strong guy so total weight isn't that big a deal but overkill is overkill.

In that case the extra weight of the Matchdot won't be a problem for you. I don't have any figures on the relative weights of different sets of rings but the differences probably aren't over an ounce or so. Whether you like a lighter or heavier gun is one of those personal preference things. I have seen some of the top bullseye shooters using a very light gun / dot combination while other top competitors go the other way with a heavier combination and then even add some weights for extra stability.

sciguy191 wrote:Isn't one of the prime reasons for going to the Weaver or Leupold rings the ability to pop the Ultradot off for pistol cleaning without losing your zero. I have funny feeling about wacking the barrel free with an Ultradot installed. Got to love those Ruger pistols for disassembly;)

Hugh

Removing the rings that come with Ultradots can result in loss of zero while some others might not. Cleaning a gun both in how you do it and how often is one of those almost 'religious' questions I hesitate to get into here, but many of the top shooters do not clean the bore of a 22 often if ever. They only take it down from time to time to clean out the crud so that it functions properly. One of the things I do on my guns is to wrap the sight in plastic wrap from the kitchen to keep solvents from getting on it during the cleaning process. I don't want to be taking it off very often or the screws will eventually loosen up and not hold tightly enough. Just some thoughts for you.

ciscovt wrote:Hugh,
I started out with the 30mm as I thought I needed the larger field of view for sustained fire. after about a year I switched to the basic 1" UltraDot. The 1" has pleanty of field of view, is lighter less expensive and there is a much wider variety of rings availible for 1" rather than 30mm. For rings, I have settled on the Weaver 1" Top Mount, low, product #49040. They go on and off quickly and maintain zero very well. They are light weight and I think as low as you possibly can get.

Scott

Plus 1 on Scott's comments. There is a far greater selection in 1 inch rings, and they're also MUCH MUCH less expensive. It's also much harder to find low rings in 30mm since most uses for 30mm rings have a 50mm objective lens and a 6.5 to 20 magnification.

Mike
Wichita KS

Hugh,
I like the 1" Ultradot with the factory or Millett (identical) vertically split aluminum rings over an aluminum base. It's light + reliable.

Just don't over torque the screws.

Steve.

I have two suggestions

If you deal with one gun or will likely never switch dots gun to gun, use the 1" UD with Burris Zee rings. The "extra" low work with the regular UD. 1" 4 dot requires regular lows. Lowest dot height to bore is a good thing.

Otherwise have a Brownells 22 rail installed and use Leupold 22 rings. If all 22s are equipped this way, switching dots around is super easy.

Burris 30mm Zee rings or Weigand are my suggestion for the Matchdot.

jackh wrote:
If you deal with one gun or will likely never switch dots gun to gun, use the 1" UD with Burris Zee rings. The "extra" low work with the regular UD.

.

Jack,

Do you hve a link for "Extra Low" Zee Rings. I haven't been able to find them via Google or a trip to the Burris web page.

Thanks for the sound advice.

Hugh

Greetings;
Try the BEC Miradot 1" from cdnninvestments.com, at $14.99 it's amazing and have been using two I purchased on a Buckmark and Ruger. I have an ultradot on a Mod.41 and both sights work great.
Regards

I just looked up Burris rings on
http://www.burrisoptics.com/rings1.html#2
They don't list extra low or maybe they were called super low. I must have found old stock at retail. I measured the height difference. where "low" are .130" high, the extra low I have are .030". The regular 1" UD fits with a tiny bit of clearance between it's belly and the Weaver rail. The 4 dot 1" UD would work in extra low if mounted on small 2 piece weaver bases.

The .130 low rings are still very satisfactory.