Red dot rail mounting Q

I got a Nelson .22 conversion with a dot.  love the dot!  Big difference for these 57 yo eyes.  I'd like to get a rail and dot installed on my 1911 slide now.  Any recs would be appreciated.  Slide rail, frame mount, etc.  also a smith to do it.  Could I just send in the slide or would they need the entire gun?  Thanks! 
Kurt

well several ways you can go, mount on slide, what most use. mount on frame what some use, mount on grip what a very few use, which is best, of the first two types its just personal preference mostly. Mount on Grip is basically a temporary thing but some use them and if held in place very good they will do ok.    Dots, forget all the cheap stuff like burris,bsa,aimpoint copies and others that have been proven to be inferior for 50 yd target shooting  and buy what has been proven to work, a ultradot or a aimpoint. of those the 1'' is the most popular, 30mm match dots are also very popular as are some of the newer match dot 2s, aimpoint micros are nice but need after market sun shades to be good in all conditions, comp 3 and 4 are also good but are heavier than the others listed. dot size 4 is most often used, but some like the smaller 2 and others buy a match dot to get a variety of 2,4,6 and 8. Best thing is look at guys using these and see which you like best. these are my opinions yours may differ.

I have been using the red dot for 20+ years. I am in favor of slide mounting! Having a son in the AMU so I'm very familiar with what they have been doing and they favor slide mounting but this topic is like deciding which is better Ford or Chevy.
 If you want I can mount a slide mount, I like to make the ones I install. I use a better grade of Aluminum (7075) We can work out the details in PM better than here if your interested. I do not anodize, I can get that stuff they sell at Brownells to blacken the Aluminum. On my guns it remains silver in color.
 If you do intend to send me the slide I will also need the barrel and bushing. The drawback with sending only the slide is I will have no way to test load requirements.
 As Dave said there are a few different Red Dots available. I'm not sure how the new Millets are but I have one mounted on the Pistol I built for my son that is giving excellent results and is available on ebay for $65ish +. I prefer the smallest dot available. The Ultadots are a step up and give good results. I've always been happy with the ones I had. I'm not sure about the Micros, I'm testing one now that came from Joe Chambers. Others at my club are happy with it and it sells for around $170 plus shipping. Supposed to be made by Holosun.
Frank

If you are using the same lower for the conversion, it take a lot more time to convert if you are using a frame mount.

I like Al Marvel's slide mount: http://www.marvelcustomguns.com/1911_slide_mount_scope_bases.htm

When you use a slide mount, there is no delay to switch from .45 to conversion.

Best Options

IMO I like the slide mount. But the Sams mount system is great but expensive. 

I am playing around with slide ribs and have used each of these and are displayed in order of my preference weighing cost, flexibility, and performance 

Rock River Bullseye Rib (Slide) most flexible
 
Kodiak Mount for Aimpoint (Slide) Best performance but really hard to install and you better like an Aimpoint or primary arms dot. 

Clark Rib (Slide) lowest cost

David Sams (Frame)

I would avoid a Wegland/Baer style mount as I don't like the idea of drilling into the dust guard, hard to clean, hard to clear an alibi and hard to check the slide.

If you are using the same lower for the conversion, it take a lot more time to convert if you are using a frame mount.

And a slide mount is even faster if you are using a 2 piece guide rod. 20 seconds maybe.  

Thanks everyone.  Last Q:  can I shoot hardball with the dot?  Just a matter of recoil springs between HB and lighter SWC loads?
Kurt

Well you can shoot HB with the dot, it should take the recoil depending on how it's mounted. But eventually the scope will have issues. However there is no reason to shoot HB unless you want to.  Currently the EIC matches require iron sights only and HB has been removed as a requirement.
 Depending on how often and how many rounds shot I find that all the red dots begin to have issues after a while. Though the micros may not as I have used them very long.

kjanracing wrote:I got a Nelson .22 conversion with a dot.  love the dot!  Big difference for these 57 yo eyes.  I'd like to get a rail and dot installed on my 1911 slide now.  Any recs would be appreciated.  Slide rail, frame mount, etc.  also a smith to do it.  Could I just send in the slide or would they need the entire gun?  Thanks! 
Kurt

Al Marvel's rib is as good as it gets.. Tried and tested years ago by the Marine Corp..  Mount an Ultra dot on it, and you will have a great rig..I am very partial to the Aimpoint Micro H-1, but very expensive.. Like auto racing.. Speed costs money, "How fast do you want to go.?"  

Why not machine the Weaver style mounting grooves into the slide? 

This would lower the dot to the extreme position with the appropriate clearance made with the ring height. 

I understand ejection could be a problem, but Jerry and Frank can solve all of those issues. 

Blsi2600 wrote:Why not machine the Weaver style mounting grooves into the slide? 

This would lower the dot to the extreme position with the appropriate clearance made with the ring height. 

I understand ejection could be a problem, but Jerry and Frank can solve all of those issues. 

KC Crawford did that,  I believe using an Aimpoint Micro.. About the only place on the slide with enough material is the extreme rear.  Joe Chambers is producing a slide with a base formed into the slide at manufacture..I am not sure if it will adapt to the Micro or not.. I am absolutely not a "flat screen" advocate for bullseye guns.  I think it's detrimental to locate the optics at the extreme rear of the slide..
You can get the Micros very low by replacing the factory base with a fabricated custom base that is machined into a pocket on a Marvel rib...I have done a large number of these, and there are pictures somewhere if you have time to search..or I can dig them up on Photobucket..

Jerry, I've shot scopes mounted forward, middle and rear(prefer rear). Why do you think it's detriment to shoot rear mounted?  I'm very curious
Jon

I would think that mounting a Micro to the extreme rear of the slide has good features and bad. I do not like adding weight forward of the slide stop pin. Less weight the better! On the other hand mounting a Micro without a sun shade will allow blow back to dirty the front lens. Any oil that might be included will smear when attempting to clean it online.
 One thing I don't like about the Micros that fit the Weaver type base is that they don't fit the base right. I just got a Ultradot Micro and it too does not fit the base correctly. The Precision Arms Micro I just got from Joe Chambers does not fit right either but so I made a base to fit right. Not sure if that poor fit will cause sighting problems but I didn't want to find out during a match. Bushnell and a few others I have are the same mount, however the Ultradot being almost the same has an additional issue. Of the all the Precision Arms mount is the best and it's supposedly made by Holosun.

You don't necessarily need a rib. You can mount Weaver bases directly to the slide.

Jon Eulette wrote:Jerry, I've shot scopes mounted forward, middle and rear(prefer rear). Why do you think it's detriment to shoot rear mounted?  I'm very curious
Jon

I am thinking that mid slide is a neutral position from a paralax stand point.. Also when looking thru extension tubes, the shooter's eyes tend to naturally center the dot within the tube easier, which also aligns the gun/bore. Much like a ghost ring sight.. That's one reason, among others, that I think flat screens are a poor choice for bullseye. There is nothing for the eye to adjust to.  We used to say, the bullet strike is,  where it is, because that's where the muzzzle was pointed.. So ideally, the  muzzle would be the best location, but of course not practical. Same with te rear, the advantage of mounting on the muzzle, would be the exact opposite benefit by mounting on the rear.  The micro frame mounts I set up for Amira are nearly exact mid point, with plenty of tube length.. Really happy with the results...

Also, during recoil, the more weight on the rear, the more leverage the frame has against the shooter's arm. The race gun gurus take as much off the rear as possible in an effort to keep the gun level at slide impact with the frame. I am convinced that is what injured her arm.. I had an Aimpoint Comp on her first gun, mounted on the slide..

That's what I do Dave. I have a radius cutter grinder, I match the radius of the slide on an endmill I grind. That way I get a better fit and less tendency to come loose. When I make the base I prefer to use 7075 Aluminum, it is the strongest of all the Aluminum. Sometimes a step down and use 2024 but never 6061 unless I have to weld it.
 Seems all the ring type mounts fit Weaver bases well but the Micros don't. I am disappointed in the Ultradot Micro. The mount looks to be machined and well made but it's not correct!
 I can't comment as to the torque exerted on the had as to location of the scope, I know nothing about it though I avoid having the slide slam against the frame an adjust the spring to the load to avoid that as much as possible. As to mounting forward I find that weight ahead of the slide stop tends to wear the frame and slide in such a manor that the slide begins to pivot up and down around the slide stop pin. When talking to Jimmy Clark that was a reason he put those setscrews in that band on the dust cover to overcome that issue especially on the long slides.

Froneck wrote:That's what I do Dave. I have a radius cutter grinder, I match the radius of the slide on an endmill I grind. That way I get a better fit and less tendency to come loose. When I make the base I prefer to use 7075 Aluminum, it is the strongest of all the Aluminum. Sometimes a step down and use 2024 but never 6061 unless I have to weld it.
 Seems all the ring type mounts fit Weaver bases well but the Micros don't. I am disappointed in the Ultradot Micro. The mount looks to be machined and well made but it's not correct!
 I can't comment as to the torque exerted on the had as to location of the scope, I know nothing about it though I avoid having the slide slam against the frame an adjust the spring to the load to avoid that as much as possible. As to mounting forward I find that weight ahead of the slide stop tends to wear the frame and slide in such a manor that the slide begins to pivot up and down around the slide stop pin. When talking to Jimmy Clark that was a reason he put those setscrews in that band on the dust cover to overcome that issue especially on the long slides.

Actually, the set screws in the modified dust cover was originally John Giles' idea. Jim Clark senior used it, but always acknowledged John Giles.

Oh OK Jimmy never mentioned Giles. We got into the discussion after I showed him my version which works much better. I silver soldered 2 tabs, one one each side on the end of the dust cover so that in a short move of the slide the radius no longer contacts the tabs and it has free travel to the rear. Tabs only come into play at lock-up

Jerry Keefer wrote:

Jon Eulette wrote:Jerry, I've shot scopes mounted forward, middle and rear(prefer rear). Why do you think it's detriment to shoot rear mounted?  I'm very curious
Jon

I am thinking that mid slide is a neutral position from a paralax stand point.. Also when looking thru extension tubes, the shooter's eyes tend to naturally center the dot within the tube easier, which also aligns the gun/bore. Much like a ghost ring sight.. That's one reason, among others, that I think flat screens are a poor choice for bullseye. There is nothing for the eye to adjust to.  We used to say, the bullet strike is,  where it is, because that's where the muzzzle was pointed.. So ideally, the  muzzle would be the best location, but of course not practical. Same with te rear, the advantage of mounting on the muzzle, would be the exact opposite benefit by mounting on the rear.  The micro frame mounts I set up for Amira are nearly exact mid point, with plenty of tube length.. Really happy with the results...

Also, during recoil, the more weight on the rear, the more leverage the frame has against the shooter's arm. The race gun gurus take as much off the rear as possible in an effort to keep the gun level at slide impact with the frame. I am convinced that is what injured her arm.. I had an Aimpoint Comp on her first gun, mounted on the slide..

Mounting dots forward might kind of act like a longer sight radius in that the dot will appear moving different as you wave your muzzle around compared to mounting rearward.

. I started a same zero for 25-50  topic and moved Froneck and my posts about that to it, so any further posts on the zero subject can proceed there and get this back on the original posters topic.

I don't know as much about it as you guys and I thank you for your combined wisdom. 

In my experience, mounting my Primary arms Dot on the back of a Clark rib on a M41 and 1911 was uncomfortable for me. The dot was less clear and the position seemed forced. 
On the Clark Rib I think the Ultra dot one inch is superior as the standard rings at low. The Ultra DOt match dot is good too. 

I seem like that Kodiak mount the best even though its tougher to install because the dot is low and more forward and the tubes make the whole think line up nicely. I have not shot it in a match yet but the initial results are very good.

"Mounting dots forward might kind of act like a longer sight radius in that the dot will appear moving different as you wave your muzzle around compared to mounting rearward." Jack H

 I mentioned checking the dot and different lengths in the other topic. As I mentioned there I checked an Ultardot Micro at different distances from the eye. Though it was arms length, half arms length and few inches from my eye. The very best location was a few inches from my eye. I would think that a few inches forward or back will make very little difference but back should be better than front from a parallax and field of view standpoint.

Everyone, thank you so much for this discussion.  Froneck, I'll get in touch with you in a while.  Thanks, Kurt.