PDA

View Full Version : GPG Gen. 5 mounts- details, details


adam762
November 09, 2006, 18:28
I have a client wanting a mount for a scoped FAL, and the GPG mount looked to be a possibility. So I ordered one, and it came in today. Prior to setting it up on my clients rifle, I decided to take it out and run it hard and see what happened.

The real dissapointment was the stupid scope. I robbed it from a .22, and it did not take the recoil well. The rear bell kept coming loose. What'dya expect from a Tasco, I guess. :rolleyes:

I intended to mount it on all 4 rifles. I wound up only doing 2, mostly due to time.

Edited for spelling...:bigangel:

adam762
November 09, 2006, 20:09
First up was my StG. The mount was stiff on the DSA receiver, requiring the palm of my hand to push it forward. The rear of the mount was flush with the rear of the receiver when it stopped it's forward travel. I removed the flashider and spent about 40 rounds getting the scope relatively dialed in.

adam762
November 09, 2006, 20:12
The mount put the scope low on the receiver. It did have enough room for the rear bell to clear the rear sight, and I didn't mind the sight aperature sticking up, as it didn't interfere with my sighting.

adam762
November 09, 2006, 20:18
I shot 60 rounds total through the StG with the mount at this point, and there were very few brass marks on the mount to show that anything had happened. The receiver has plenty of kisses, but it should, as I've enjoyed the hell outta shooting that thing. I would find out later that having the gas set properly is key to not damaging the mount with hard hitting brass on the way out.

adam762
November 09, 2006, 20:33
The StG was shooting about two inch groups off the sandbags at 100 yrds. with South African right out of the box. Maybe coulda done better, but it had demonstrated the mounts ability to hold a scope on the rifle and put rounds in the black. Now, to see how it did swapped out onto another rifle.

Here's where I screwed up. The next rifle was a new build. It's Kullivan's Imbel on a new Coonan, and I needed to test run it with the new finish prior to sending it home. I had not set the gas yet, so I began firing with the regulator all the way closed. Of course it cycled, and since I was intently peering down the glass, I failed to see the brass heading for the hills on the right side of the rifle.

I suppose a steel mount would be more durable. Or, just an operator who had the gas set prior to installing the mount. This is what happened after 15 rounds or so shooting with the regulator closed.

adam762
November 09, 2006, 20:43
Pretty serious beating going on here. The scope and mount that had been zeroed on the StG would not even get on the paper with the Imbel. In all fairness, I did not tighten the set screws down, so that may have made a difference. I was not too upset over the fact that the POI was so different between the two rifles, as I don't think I'd be doing much scope swapping between my rifles if I had such things installed.

At any rate, I did not bother to zero the Imbel, as I was only interested in seeing where the rounds fell when the mount was transferred. After 20 rounds, I removed the mount.

adam762
November 09, 2006, 20:58
I reinstalled the mount on the StG and fired a 5 shot group at 100 yrds again. POI was about two and a half inches right of center and half an inch high. One round bullseyed... but that was due to the rifle discharging before I was ready. (dammit FSE, how come you gotta make triggers that break so light and clean???) Funny that the only way I can make a bull at 100 yards is by accident... Although two rounds did use the same hole.

This is after the scope and mount had fired 80 rounds, and been swapped between rifles a bit. I did not expect a real 'return to zero'. I don't think any mount really will. Being this close was a pleasant suprise.

Due to the time getting on and a 6 yr old boy who was getting tired of playing baseball with a stick and spent brass, I opted not to re zero the scope to the StG. I'm giving that stupid tasco POS back to my brother, and it can stay on the 22 where it MIGHT be ok. The mount will be going on a bit of a target FAL anyways, and the owner has his own rings and optics for it. FWIW, the owner is a local pal of mine, and he did not object to me trying out his new mount.

(Edited for spelling, again.):mad:

adam762
November 09, 2006, 21:14
I am most pleased with the system of attachment to the upper. The rails that engage the topcover slots are full length, just like a standard topcover is. The mount as a unit is extruded that way; these rails are not machined in there. The set screws that you see serve to farther pull the rail against the side of the receiver, but at no point does any part of the mount touch any part of the upper except for the rails in the slots. The screws pull a tab inside the rail against the body of the mount, creating the extra pressure to secure the mount. I do not think that this would have even been necessary on the DSA upper, as stiff as it went on that, but the fit on the Coonan was a bit looser, and I think the set screws would have been appropriate there. Still, there was NO room for any travel of the mount fore or aft.

Best of all, there was no damage to the finish on the rifle. I rather enjoy keeping my rifles looking great, and while I do not mind brass kisses (the more the merrier, 'cause I'm the one who puts 'em there), other types of damage to the finish really piss me off. Not a concern with this mount.

So, to summarize, the mount fits good, clears everything it needs to, does not bugger the finish, has an acceptable (at least to me) return to zero, and did not once cause a problem with ejecting brass... although, ejecting brass clearly caused IT problems. I think that is just a penalty we pay for having an aluminum mount, and I can't help but think the result would have been the same for any other aluminum mount I tried to launch brass from.

If anyone wants any close up pics of any particular part of the mount, let me know, and I will post your pic here.

Fact is, it works good. My opinion? I like it. Money well spent.

snolden
November 09, 2006, 21:19
thanks adam. this mount will likely go on one of my FAL's.

Sean

I can sympathize with the kid thing. They get tired of shooting after about 30 or 40 rounds and after that, it is hard to watch the target when they are running all over the place.

Padeep
November 11, 2006, 21:18
Thanks for the info Adam!

I want one!!

Looking for a scope and rings now. Possibly a Burris 'short mag'....

Edit- what's with the bolt/carrier in posts 4&6? It looks odd...?



Pdp

English Mike
November 11, 2006, 21:30
I ordered one before this was posted - I get to see it in May next year.

Based on this review & GPG's reputation, I have no worries about its functionality - I think that I'll "do a ggilliiee" to the extractor & see if that reduces the brass impacts.

eeddiitteedd for too many ll's:redface:

gunsmith_tony
November 11, 2006, 21:35
I have one of the stripper clip versions on each of my FALs. They fit well, don't mar the reciever, their inexpensive, and so far they stay tight.
No complaints here.

Pistolwiz
November 11, 2006, 22:53
Originally posted by adam762
The mount put the scope low on the receiver. It did have enough room for the rear bell to clear the rear sight, and I didn't mind the sight aperature sticking up, as it didn't interfere with my sighting.

If you notice in that pic there's lots of clearence to use the iron sights when you pull the scope or use see through rings.

splattermatic
November 12, 2006, 17:06
hey adam,
is that the l1a1 soon to be heading this way ??

adam762
November 13, 2006, 19:58
Edit- what's with the bolt/carrier in posts 4&6? It looks odd...?

The bolt is locked to the rear in these pics. You're seeing the inside of the receiver.

Yes, Mark, that L1A1 will indeed be coming out towards you soon. With different furniture and fresh finish, of course.

dadman
November 13, 2006, 21:57
adam762,

Have you tried rocking the mount side-to-side with an attached scope?
Watch the rear of the attached mount and upper receiver while rocking the upper and holding steady the lower.
Due to the design of the GPG mount, you probally won't see any movement like you would with a strictly slide in mount.

Padeep
November 14, 2006, 16:07
Originally posted by adam762


The bolt is locked to the rear in these pics. You're seeing the inside of the receiver.

Oh, Duh! I am stupid....


pdp

Pistolwiz
November 29, 2006, 17:23
Here's some proof of the strength of our mounts. A customer had a KB in his FAL. He credits that he was not hurt by the fact that the scope mount cover held. You can see in the pics that the left integral rail cracked. But the mount held and prevented the shooter from being sprayed with brass shrapnel. His hand written letter that credits our mount for saving him from injury is in the top pic. We're glad he's OK. The mount was removed from the receiver and slid right off after the screws were loosened.

http://www.gunpartsguy.com/image/22295341.JPG
http://www.gunpartsguy.com/image/22295448.JPG

splattermatic
November 30, 2006, 01:08
hey adam,
has the l1a1 shipped yet ??

adam762
November 30, 2006, 12:35
Not yet mark, but if you want a teaser, go look at the one Pat has for sale in the marketplace. Yours looks a lot like that...:biggrin:

shootist87122
July 04, 2007, 17:52
BTT for a great review.

I missed this when I was looking for info on the GPG mount recently , but bought one a couple of weeks ago, anyhow. I'm pleased as punch with mine and have a short note and a couple of pics in the Optics forum. I'm getting better groups with a scoped FAL (of known accuracy) than with the irons - that has not always been the case in the past.

Joe