Aimpoint 9000sc Mounting Rings

I bought an Aimpoint 9000sc from a fellow on this forum, mostly because I wanted to see what the sight was like.  I know it's heavy, which is the opposite of what I think I need, but I figured if I didn't like it, I could sell it again - but maybe I would like it.  Best way to find out was to try.

I mounted one sight ring at the end of each of two rails, Marvel Custom Guns, and Clarks.   

I have some questions - doesn't look right to me, but I figured I would ask whether this is how it's supposed to work.

It is the double dovetail that defines where the rings sit on the rail.  So , YES, that is the way it is supposed to be.

Mmm, I think the through bolt may be too big for the slot in this particular rail. If you press the ring down against the rail without the bolt, does it ride lower?

I've had 4 of the 9000SC's now, I don't like the stock rings, the clamp bar doesn't fit some rails right and they're easy to strip. My favorite rings are the Weaver 99515 30mm low rings, adds a bit more weight but worth it IMO, fits much better on the rail and no chance to strip it out since there's a steel insert with a nut.

Wobbley wrote:It is the double dovetail that defines where the rings sit on the rail.  So , YES, that is the way it is supposed to be.

That was the thing I was wondering about - with the Micro sight, the entire bottom of the mount rests against the entire top of the rail, which is how I thought the world worked.  After wondering about it for the past hour or so, I figured that if the edges of the rail are what is going to position everything, the sight rings may or many not sit flat on the rail.  On the 9000 SC I notice that the tiny rectangular pieces into which the locking screw threads in, are NOT in the middle of the part.  They are closer to one edge than the other.  When I reversed them, they no longer locked the clamps in place; when I put them back the way they came, everything worked fine.  

I'll check if there are any online instructions.

-TT-, which rail were you referring to?  The top photo is using a Marvel rail, and the bottom is with a Clarks.   I ended up mounting the sight on the Clarks rail, and the bolts go freely through with no resistance.  When I snug everything up, the bolt is no longer "horizontal".  One side of the scope is slightly higher than the other, all of which apparently is determined by the "fixed" side of the scope mount which goes right up against the rail edge.  The other side moves around as needed as you snug things up.  I don't know enough about sights yet to comment, but it looks like a poor design to me, unless it's that way because it needs to be adjustable??  I guess that would explain it.

zanemoseley wrote:I've had 4 of the 9000SC's now, I don't like the stock rings, the clamp bar doesn't fit some rails right and they're easy to strip. My favorite rings are the Weaver 99515 30mm low rings, adds a bit more weight but worth it IMO, fits much better on the rail and no chance to strip it out since there's a steel insert with a nut.

Thanks!!  I will try this as-is, mostly to see how my body deals with the weight.  I don't know if I'm going to love it or hate it.  If I continue to use the 9000sc, I'll buy the Weaver 99515 30mm low rings.  I'll check if Midway offers them for sale.

I remember reading here about how a heavier sight might require a change in powder loads.  I'm wondering if my Magnus #801 reloads, using 4 grains of Bullseye, will need to be modified.  The first thing though, is seeing if I can shoot this thing using only half my hands.   :-)

mikemyers wrote:-TT-, which rail were you referring to?

I was referring to both, actually. These mounts are different from the Micro, the double dovetail pulls from both top and bottom. But, the bolt is visible in-between for both. This means the mounts are not sandwiched with the rails, instead they are riding on the bolt. That's not an ideal situation, you want them to sit on a hard, flat, immobile platform. IMO.

-TT- wrote:

mikemyers wrote:-TT-, which rail were you referring to?

I was referring to both, actually. These mounts are different from the Micro, the double dovetail pulls from both top and bottom. But, the bolt is visible in-between for both. This means the mounts are not sandwiched with the rails, instead they are riding on the bolt. That's not an ideal situation, you want them to sit on a hard, flat, immobile platform. IMO.

I think these will work better.  

I understand that the sight can't be located by too many "surfaces".  It can be the top of the rail (as in Micro), or the edges of the rail (like this):

maybe this is your problem

Many rail-grabber-mounted accessories can be used on either type of rail, and accessories designed for a Weaver system will generally fit Picatinny rails – although not vice versa. 

Chris Miceli wrote:maybe this is your problem

Many rail-grabber-mounted accessories can be used on either type of rail, and accessories designed for a Weaver system will generally fit Picatinny rails – although not vice versa. 

Chris, the rail the sight is on now, is Clarks.  Looking on their website, the 1911 Scope Base is Weaver Style.  So most likely that's what I am using.  
So, maybe your diagnosis is correct.

According to Aimpoint, their 9000 Series 30mm rings "Fits on Weaver and Picatinny rail".  (So, maybe it should work, and it did seem to mount "OK".)

The Weaver Tactical Picatinny-Style Rings recommended here are "Style: Picatinny".  (So, I think I should buy these.)


Thanks; I'll add one more thought - while my arm is less than pleased at the additional weight, the gun now has so much more "inertia" that it seems more stable, not less.  Whatever I've lost by making my arm work harder, I've gained in making the gun more stable.

mikemyers wrote:Looking on their website, the 1911 Scope Base is Weaver Style.  So most likely that's what I am using.  
So, maybe your diagnosis is correct.

Beware the word "style". Weaver rails have a fairly broad range of dimensions, especially on the width, depth and spacing of slots. Picatinny are much more mil-spec constrained. You really have to play around when mixing European (Aimpoint) and USA manufacturer optics, as well.

As soon as they are available, I will have one of the new rails being manufactured and sold by Jon.  I think I'm #1 on the waiting list.  In the meantime, from an earlier post here:


 by [url=/u2461]zanemoseley[/url] Today at 10:43 am
I've had 4 of the 9000SC's now, I don't like the stock rings, the clamp bar doesn't fit some rails right and they're easy to strip. My favorite rings are the Weaver 99515 30mm low rings, adds a bit more weight but worth it IMO, fits much better on the rail and no chance to strip it out since there's a steel insert with a nut.


Chances are this will work for me as well as it did for him, so I'll be placing the order in the next few minutes.  I didn't think this was going to be all that complicated.  Thanks for all the advice.  One way or another, I'm sure it's eventually going to work out.

I had the same problem with the Clarke rail and Aimpoint rings, they held fine but I didn't like the minimal dovetail engagement.  At some point after removing and reinstalling my Aimpoint I stripped a crossbolt.  On a quest to find better fitting rings I went with the Leupold Steel QRW, HEAVY!!!  The QRW fitted a little bit better but the weight was definitely noticed.  Then someone here or on Facebook mentioned the Vortex Hunter rings, WINNER! (At some point in this story I also upgraded to a RRA rail to gain more slots.)

I found, and still find, it hard to believe that Aimpoint has such a tiny dovetail engagement.  I took the photos up above, because I figured I must be doing something wrong.  I was just watching a video of Brian Zins the other day when his sight came loose - I wonder if that's what happened to him?  For something that sells for such a high price, I would think they would care about things like this.   I guess I shouldn't be so surprised, when I already found out that the standard base for the Aimpoint Micro really should be replaced with a Kodiak.

Sc0 wrote:I had the same problem with the Clarke rail and Aimpoint rings, they held fine but I didn't like the minimal dovetail engagement.  At some point after removing and reinstalling my Aimpoint I stripped a crossbolt.  On a quest to find better fitting rings I went with the Leupold Steel QRW, HEAVY!!!  The QRW fitted a little bit better but the weight was definitely noticed.  Then someone here or on Facebook mentioned the Vortex Hunter rings, WINNER! (At some point in this story I also upgraded to a RRA rail to gain more slots.)

I had a pair of Vortex Hunters too, had issues with the dot slipping in the rings even after checking bolt torque. I sent them back to Vortex and they refunded me.

I got to try the gun today - didn't work too well.  As I adjusted the sights, it got better, then worse?  Found the clamping screws kept coming loose.  I eventually gave up.  I guess I wait until the new rail from Jon is ready, along with the new rings I ordered from Midway USA..


............so with nothing else to do, I removed the 9000sc and attached a never-before-used Ultradot L/T.  I have no idea how well it will or won't work, but it sure cuts the weight of the gun down!  I bought it three years ago, but the type type Ultradot red dot sights seemed more appropriate to me for Bullseye.  Maybe.....

I'm curious about something.  I've got a week to wait until the new rings arrive, and rather than just stare at the parts, I mounted my until-then unused Ultradot L/T.  Three years ago, I ordered it, then read here how people preferred the Matchdot II, so ordered that as well.  Looking through the sights, the Matchdot II had what I thought was a better view.

Anyway, like I said, I've now got the L/T mounted for the next week or so - at least that's what my plan was or is.  

I'm sitting here trying to get over a cold, so with nothing really scheduled for today, I started to to dry-fire practice with the L/T.  I remember there were reasons others didn't like this sight, but so far it seems pretty good to me.  Looking through the Aimpoint Micro, I think I get a better view than with the L/T.  As a photographer, the L/T doesn't seem as impressive, but on the other hand, it weighs next to nothing, it fits nicely on the rails, and what I "see" when I pick up the gun looks like a thin curved piece of wire bent around as a semi-circle, wit a red dot magically appearing over the top of my gun.  The 9000sc by comparison seems like it would be much nicer if it stayed in place, and if I ate enough spinach, or I could put it on a diet.

I don't know whether the L/T will enjoy life sitting on a 1911 with all the recoil.  The folks at Ultradot told me this should be no problem.  I don't know yet whether the dot needs to be in the middle of the sight, or if it still works when off one way or another.  I also don't know yet how the mount will deal with all the recoil.  

If I get to the range tomorrow afternoon, I'll see how it works with real ammo, in my not-that-skilled hand.  Singular.

They're supposed to make contact on the double angles. The top surface is what I'd consider an 'uncontrolled surface'. The tolerance from the angled faces is +0, -.020". I think I could make one with a decent bandsawed surface to meet that spec. And the people who make 'dovetail' mount 'Picatinny' rings using the top face for a reference would run into a wee bit of trouble. IE, most of the 'Tactikewl' 'Billet' overweight, overpriced, scope ring suppliers.

Could be they do it because they've tested it and they repeat zero better. Or it's just easier and more tolerant of rails that aren't to spec.

As for the Leupold QRW rings, I have 5 sets I think. Yes, they don't fit a proper Picatinny rail quite right. Turns out the black finished ones are painted, and if you scrape the paint off the mating surfaces they fit perfectly. However, once you correct that little problem, you might find ( I FOUND !!!) that the saddles for the scope tube don't line up with each other.

I think they were good as far as height above the rail, but NONE of the sets I have were aligned side to side. I wound up mounting them up on a section of rail in a side mounted vise, and recontouring them in the CNC with a long carbide endmill. I didn't go for more than about 80% cleanup. However, with the cap screws angled the way they are, as you machine them deeper, the holes in the base and cap go out of alignment. Didn't actually create a problem with clamping, but it's a bit worrisome as you install the screws.

Could be one of the reasons I got the following comment when I went to a LGS looking for a set ... 'We don't carry those. They're kinda junky'.

Your little clamping block.  Shouldn't the wide side be up?

Jack H wrote:Your little clamping block.  Shouldn't the wide side be up?

If you are referring to the photos I posted earlier, I tried them one way, and they didn't work.  So turned the small blocks upside down, and they didn't work.  You might be right.  but after trying them both ways, I gave up.

This is the user manual:  https://www.aimpoint.com/fileadmin/user_upload/2015_Web_Content/Product_PDFs/User_Manuals/Sights/11431-11_Manual_Comp_9000series_ENG_FR_DE_ES_SE_RU_LoRes.pdf

I never found what the factory recommends.  Their instructions (section 2.2) say   Aimpoint sights are designed for installation on most types of weapons. For mounting, certain models come with one or two rings, for other models, use standard rings available on the market. If your weapon does not have or support an appropriate base(s), please consult your dealer, gunsmith or other qualified source.


At this point in time, I'm just going to wait for Jon's rail.  If I get overly frustrated, I've still got my file.....

Small update.  I mostly got the 9000sc to see what it was like, after reading so much about it.  Over the past couple of weeks I had second thoughts about mounting it on a 1911.  My older Salyer now has my Matchdot L/T mounted to a Clark rail, weighs next to nothing, and seems to work very well.  My grouping with that sight is close to what I can do with a 22.  The Clark rail will be changed to one of Jon's rails when available.  My Caspian Salyer still has the Aimpoint H1 sight, which works nicely, but even with the opened up notch, I still don't think it is straight up and down.  Again, waiting for Jon's rail.  

As to the 9000sc, Dave Salyer suggested it would be good for a Model 41.  So a few days ago I mounted it, using the Clark barrel with built-in rail, and the add-on rings suggested above in this thread.  The square "bolts" dropped into the slots like everything was made to be used that way.  Having gone that far, I replaced the (beautiful!!!) Hogue grips with the custom wood grip I bought from this forum.  I'll find out tomorrow how it all works out....

I do have a question - Renee at Clarks told me that it's safe to dry-fire a Model 41, and she does it all the time.  If I can't see any signs of anything going wrong, is it safe to do that?