Don't need anything special but I do need QD and cantilever.

these are the Cadillac. supposed to return to zero, when reinstalled. but if going on multiple uppers, you'll have to re zero each time:

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/37...h-integral-30mm-rings-flattop-ar-15-matt

i am using these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI9VCm5kUyo

LT104 works for me.

Usually the QD is so you can use it on the same rifle with a return to zero. Buy removing to use on multiple rifle's the point of impact will constantly change.

if your scope is worth a crap you can write down what the dope is and reset it pretty close. In an LT-104 I have moved a 1 inch scope (plastic ring bushings in 30mm mount) from a 308 to a 5.56 and redialed original settings pretty close, I cannot recall exactly but seems it was less than 2 inches off at 100 last time I did it with an OK scope.

I like the Aero for the weight. Like a Ferrari, some extra care needed when installing the scope to compensate for the fact the scope will twist as you properly torque down the screws. IMHO, the weight savings is worth the effort. The QD is an over rated feature. I prefer a big nut to a fancy lever. Simple all day long. Less weight. You know, semi's are heavy enough.

The Aero is 3 ounces, light. I give you the Aero 1" extended:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Aero-Precision-1-inch-Scope-Mount-Ultralight-Extended-APRA210400-Black-1-/111953286181?hash=item1a10ef9425:g:keEAAOSwv9hW6lgB

This will be actually be lighter than 1313's set up. Or settle for a Cadillac

These things work great and have plenty of room to get the scope far enough forward.
Extended Rail

I have two of the Aero's I like them however for swapping scopes from rifle to rifle I use the LaRue's

I believe the forum when they say the LaRue is a class act, I have not used one. Maybe weight is not a priority where the scope is only a temporary install. The Aero does require a little wrench to remove. That can be stored in the butt stock or just as easily lost.

Here is a low cost alternative to consider. This one has easy big thumb nuts. I used this one too and I am surprised they dont get more love. Then there are so many options out there.

Weaver Thumbnut Spr 1" Scope Mount 4 Hole Rings 48376

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Weaver-Thumbnut-Spr-1-Scope-Mount-4-Hole-Rings-48376-/311699280467?hash=item4892b99253:g:fY4AAOxy1yZSNnHY

Edit: I have a big clunker, hi magnification, Bushnell set in one of these weaver bases. if I buy or assemble a new gun or upper, I can mount this beast and check out the gun. Then it goes back into storage and an appropriate sighting setup is installed.

QD mounts like the LT104 or ADM Recon mount will work fine for returning to zero on the same upper but there is a huge difference when switching uppers. Most of the time you will have to adjust the tension on the mounts, all of them. Once you change the tension, you will have to re-sight.

As for light weight, the LT104 weighs 7.1 oz and ADM weighs 8.4 oz. The 3 oz Aero would concern me with a heavy scope mounted in it like the one pictured or especially a SS. Going light weight can be beneficial but cutting weight in the wrong area is not the thing to do.

I have many Aero mounts and have Leupold 3x9,4x12,6x18 mounted in them never a problem but I'm not in a war zone either.

May very well work just fine but the heavier the scope the heavier built I think a mount should be. I had an old B square mount years ago that would flex like crazy and looked like it could break at anytime.

To its credit, it never did but I have been suspicious of light mounts since.

My favorites for return to zero are my Larue LT104 and the new Warne Xskel mounts, which I now have on 2 ARs......

I agree a mount should be stronger for a heavier scope, but weight of the mount has very little to do with strength. Something like the Aero is already pretty strong, and a cheapo B-square mount is a pretty poor comparison for any quality mount.

I had one of those Weaver thumbnut mounts mentioned above; it was just more chinese garbage. The dumb thing leaned to one side when mounted on the rail, and had to be cranked down with a tool to stay tight. Not much point in the "thumb nuts" when you have to use tools to keep the mount tight.

It is Chinese and I was not fully honest. I use a screwdriver too. Mine was straight (vertical) and worked fine. I am pretty fussy about mounting my scopes. I think I would have seen that. I guess another example of Chinese QC.

I wont pay $200 for a mount. I can respect those who do, its just something I am not ready for. I mainly shoot at paper, no combat practice or competition shooting. Maybe a little hunting. What works for me may not be right for others.

Whats your budget Bushmaster 1313?

I would personally go with ADM if you absolutely need the QD feature and want to keep the price reasonable.

I looked in the drawer with my old optics stuff and found a UTG mount that looks like this:



It was under $40, feels cheap, the saddle from the Leupold barely fits, and I do not like that the inside of the rings looks like it is lined with electrical tape. This is why I threw it in the drawer and forgot about it when it came from Amazon. However, the UTG will swap between my flat top rifles without messing with screws. This will let me get an idea about how well my flat top rifles are shooting with a 14 power scope and various factory ammo.

I sincerely appreciate all the comments above, but I should have looked in the drawer first!

Well I guess it's better than duct tape.

Personally I'd rather not have QD if I'm swapping a base between rifles; a mount that screws down is a lot more forgiving of variations in rail sizes.

A cheap UTG mount that slips around on the rail and the scope is a good way to waste a lot of ammo and get frustrated.

i have 2 burris AR P.E.P.R QD's
i swap them between 25 sharps. 556's and 2 752x39's. the usually are within 2 inches on any one.
one is 30mm with filler rings for 1 inch. still works fine
i'm happy with them