TargetTalk

I have seen some photos in magazine articles that show a "different" way of mounting a dot sight to a Bullseye pistol.

There are 2 rings secured to the front tube without having any attached to the rear tube!

Was this done to please a lazy photographer or is this how the pistol is really used when on the range?

Did the shooter resort to this method as no other options were available
or was this some attempt at improving the gun's balance?

Have any of you ever tried doing this?

With so much of the sight's weight unsupported, isn't it subjected to a lot of shock and vibration? Won't it fail after a minimal amount of shooting?

Would you get away with this only on a .22? What about on a .45ACP?

With my UltraDots, I've always used a ring on the front tube and another on the rear. I'm just curious about how successfull this other method is.

Please comment.

I do front rings on some 22 guns but not CF.

I had a gun for a while that was done this way. Most of the time it is done to keep the base of the rings from causing spent brass to bounce off the ring base and back into the ejection port. However, it can be done to put the scope the correct distance from your eye, while at the same time moving the weight of the mount and the scope towards the front of the gun. For a 22, or a frame mounted dot on a bigger gun, one ring should be adequate to hold most scopes.
For a slide mounted dot on a 45, I would definitely want two good rings, one on either end of the main body of the scope.

I use only 1 ring on the back of the dot on my Pardini, works great. I'm considering trying two rings on my 45 actually mounted forward.

I have my model 41's mounted this way.
I have the Clark barrels and the rail stops in front of the chamber.
It also allows the dot to sit closer to my eye.

I only use one ring to mount a red dot (Millet, so it is small) on a Hammerli 208. I've had it mounted that way and shot it for almost 5 years now with no problems.