TargetTalk

Hi Everyone~

I saw an old thread about slide mount vs. frame mount for red dots on .45s and I'd like to hear some more opinions. I'm a new shooter and getting to the point where I want to start looking for my .45. That old thread got into the weeds of recoil springs and loads (which are Greek to me at this point), and I just want to hear pros and cons of each mounting approach.

I appreciate your answers in advance!

V

Slide mount 45's are less snappy. Snappy is not your friend as a newbie. One advantage of frame mount pistols is it is less work to tune your load and they aren't affected as much by temperature.

Frame mounts = easier to have a more reliable gun, are able to shoot lighter loads reliably, and are usually easier on scopes (though less of a worry with mousefart bullseye loads). On the downside they tend to be more expensive to buy and have installed, and are less tolerant of sloppy slide-frame fit.

Slide mounts add mass to the slide, which slows down the cycling of the slide. Some view this as a pro as it is less snappy, but it can also affect reliability, especially if you’ve got a very tight fitting gun to begin with...because of this, folks often have to bump up their loads to get their guns to cycle reliably. They are usually more tolerant of play in the slide-frame fit so long as the barrel locks up tight.

If you don’t reload and don’t know anything about spring rates, the advantages of a frame mount will likely be lost on you.

zanemoseley wrote:Slide mount 45's are less snappy. Snappy is not your friend as a newbie.

I disagree. I think frame mounts are easier for beginners to control and recover, and most people, for that matter.

With a frame mount the recoil is a fast impulse, but the gun moves less. It feels like a bigger kick, but the movement of the gun is (usually) less and it's over sooner, so you can get back on target faster.

With a slide mount the recoil is a long slow push. The gun is pushed further off target and it takes longer to to cycle and get back on target, but it feels more gentle.

Generally frame mounts work better, are easier to tune and can shoot lighter loads. A slide mount needs a hotter load to move all that mass.

It is much easier to rack the slide with a slide mount, grab the scope and use that as a handle, or push on the front of the scope. With a frame mount you either have to grasp the slide serrations, which requires a pretty strong grip, or have a slide racker.

It is easier to clean a slide mounted gun. The frame mount always gets in the way for cleaning.

In the end, it is a personal preference. If you can, try both before committing.

I have several versions of frame mounts and slide mounts. I did preferred frame mounts until I got what I consider the best mount made, which is the integral cut by KC, it puts the optic tube just off the slide. With an Aimpoint H1 or H2 it's so light I can run loads very close to soft my "frame mount" loads. My second favorite mount is a Redbuff frame mount that centers over the grip and with it's canted optic mounts also places the optics tube just off the slide.
- Dave

Below is a pic from KC's FB page

I dislike both. They completely screw up the balance of the gun. The Docter sight feels much better, but has it's own problems.
So, I went back to iron sights.
But, that custom job by KC looks pretty awesome!!

Jim

I spoke to two gunsmith at Camp Perry about a frame mount. My brother wants a frame .mounted pistol built. One strongly suggested that a slide mount was best for Bullseye Pistol. The other smith refused to build a pistol with a frame mount.
The frame mount is a little hard to mount to have it properly aligned. It mounts to the dust cover where metal is very thin. A lot of people have problems with maintaining the frame mount tight.. A pistol with frame mount is difficult to field strip for cleaning.
I would guess that 89% of pistols at Perry are slide mounted.

The only current frame mount worth getting is one by david sams.