The UltraMount is the latest optics mounting system from Nightforce Optics. Available in both 1.54” and 1.93” (0 MOA bias), the UltraMount features two integral recoil lugs in addition to Titanium beta series crossbolts, as well as slotted 1/2” drive hex nuts to assist in field expedient removal.
All pertinent torque specifications and tightening sequences are laser engraved on each mount to help ensure proper toque values.
The UltaMount is machined from 7075 T6 aluminum alloy and hardcoat Mil-Spec anodized finished.
Currently only available for military and LE sales.
Nightforce Optics are available for agency and unit order through ADS.
As the owner of a G super precision mount, I’d like to know the exact differences here other than titanium bolts and having the instructions written on it.
This mount was made initially for SVPS, which had VERY specific lefts and rights of how a mount could be made. Including color (this one is black contract one is not), markings, attachment method, lugs ect. NF updated their mounts and stylings like others and made a good looking, functional mount. And they’ll sell the shit out of them, in fact they already have. To SOCOM. I think the Geissele mount is superb. Having handled this mount myself several times I think it too is superb. As far as differences, material as you noted, clamp foot size, ring width, I think this is 5/8ths, styling (you can’t tell from this picture but that entire bottom bridge is cut out weighing something like 4.8oz) and cantilever. Geissele’s also had the exact same markings because it was specifically called out how mounts would be marked. Not saying this mount is better or worse, just different. Personally I’m glad to see NF update their mounts and I think these ones are pretty rad.
Thanks for info, agreed. It’s hard to know with contract items what exactly you’re looking at sometimes. When these announcements are made it can be difficult to tell whether it’s a me too contract or something that was awarded purely because of internal politics that will be dropped or ordered in mandatory minimums once adopted. If there was a different requirement along with separate RFIs etc. it’s nice to know how a given item came about being considered and then selected.
For example, I still have questions about SOCOMs SFP optic choice that will probably not answer themselves for some time (if ever) not to mention the whole URG-I thing and how that will all hash out.
As far as the SFP optic that was awarded, the SIG met all the requirements and then came in significantly cheaper. Like, 10 mil cheaper. I like others am a bit skeptical of it compared to the Razor, the NF 1-6, or the Leupy. But to be fair, everyone thought the Razor was a turd when it came out and that there was no way that a select unit bought them. But they did and now it’s basically the gold standard of LPVOs. There’s another SIG optic that is being ran and folks would probably lose their mind to that one too. As far as the URGI, there’s a lot of hullabaloo around it but it did start getting issued last week. Hopefully it’s a wonderful advancement and makes a more lethal fighter.
Here here.
I’m all for moving and shaking in the industry but I wonder at the morality of this new “Total systems provider” that SIG is playing. It smells of fake it till you make it but I guess I can’t really blame them, it’s proven to be a pretty shrewd move in the short term.
As for the URG-I, worse case I’d think would be a new barrel nut or hand guard redesign/reissue but my understanding was that the spec for the MK16 was set by USASOC/SOCOM in the first place.
Since you seem to have some insight, would you be able to say that the Mk12 gasblock no longer contacts the URG-i rail and the consensus with loaded rail vs POI deflection? Curious as I have a URG-i in the safe I need to shave the gas block for clearance. I did hear they were still in the pipeline for a coming rotation.