Maybe the seller should describe the(Lightfoot) mount as a Redfield/Leupold type rather than a Stith type.
Maybe we should discuss if something is dark black or light black.
Not really because there is a very big difference between the Stith and Redfield/Leupold systems if you want to get down into the weeds. Calling the Lightfoot mount a "Stith type" of mount is very miss leading. If anything, I would call it an alternative to a Stith. So to respond to your comment, not really - it is not as subtle as the difference between light and dark black. And believe me, you or I would be all over that point of detail if a seller tried to pass that mount off as a Stith or something similar to a Stith at a gun show - especially if they tried using it as a point for inflating the price of the gun. That kind of thing is commonly referred to as BS. Gun guys can be very detail oriented hence the crux of Roy's post on this website, the Savage Collectors Forum. So again, very big difference. And don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Lightfoot's mount as I am too of the Redfield/Leupold system. But to say that's splitting hairs would be reducing all mounting systems to their basic function of securing a scope to a rifle. And in that general of a context they would all be the same and the variations from one manufacturer to another only minor differences.
Agreed, it is misleading to an idiot. How does a Stith type mount attach to a 99 that is different than a Lightfoot mount?
Rings are different, sure, but rings aren't the mount, the mount is the mount and the Lightfoot mount attaches the same as a Stith. I'm sure you have more time to discuss this after the Flomax kicked in, but it's nit picking, at best.
