When Luke Yost bought an ACOG he decided he wanted to be able to move his new optic between a couple of rifles. Luke was busy studying material science at MIT and didn’t have the time to re-zero his optic so he did what any enterprising MIT student would do. He started his own company and invented a better mouse trap. Behold the Mod Zero M-Zero scope mount that lets rifles share scopes by retaining the scope’s zero within the Picatinny rail.
Mod Zero is funding the M-Zero mount through an IndieGoGo campaign. Here’s their pitch:
Have you spent an entire range trip and boxes of ammo rezeroing scopes? Or do you spend your hard earned gun-money on buying a handful of scopes and red-dots dedicated to just one rifle? At Mod Zero we’ve reinvented the zeroing process to make scopes modular between rifles. Rather than zeroing one scope to one rifle, our M-Zero Scope Mount lets you setup a common zero between your rifles. Zero your rifle to your scopes, Not your scope to your rifle.
Ballistic Dial: We also have a customizable ballistic dial built into the elevation dial. Basic application is range adjustment independent of attached scope. Other applications include ammunition variations, barrel/caliber swapping, and suppressor use. The ballistic dial is still in development. Range adjustment prototyping has been successful.
Our patent pending windage and elevation adjustable M-Zero Scope Mount stores the unique zero of a rifle in its picatinny rail. By setting a common zero between rifles and optics, shooters can swap components freely as their needs change.
Start with zeroing both optics to Rifle 1. Then attach the M-Zero to rifle 2. Next mount either optic to Rifle 2’s M-Zero. Finally, zero the M-Zero scope mount. Now, both optic can be attached to either rifle without the need for re-zeroing.
https://youtu.be/LDXCqqUEAOY
Early bird supporters can pick one up for $225.
For that price I could put a good quality Vortex scope or Holosun red dot on every rifle anyways.
A bore collimator and a notebook is a hell of a lot better than spending the low, low introductory price of $225 (PER GUN!). This guy isn’t building a better mousetrap – he’s solving a problem that has already been solved (in a better way).
…and that’s the difference between a student, and someone who knows what they are doing.
The issue that I see is adding 1/2 inch (?) to the scope height.
Hi Rabbi,
Our mount adds 0.6″ of height in your optics set up. Most shooters do no have a problem maintaining a comfortable cheek weld with this added height. Those with smaller head builds or that truly prefer the more typical heights can use lower height optics mounts or add a cheek riser.
This would probably be great for a “glass snob” with a couple of rifles. I don’t see a way to mount a BUIS though.
Hi Dan,
Great question with BUIS. With our M-Zero Scope Mount you can run your BUIS in front of our mount either on the top rail of your handguard or at the front of the receiver (by running the mount 1 or 2 slots back).
Combo rifles are really inexpensive these days.
“Have you spent an entire range trip and boxes of ammo rezeroing scopes?”
If you’re spending that much time and ammo zeroing a scope, you’re doing it wrong.
[Me reading this article]:
“Oh wow, that’s a pretty good idea…”
“I wouldn’t trust this for my precision rifle scope, but for a red dot on an AR, vz., or PCC, it’d be fine…”
“And I do hate rezeroing my red dots when I move them…”
“I wonder how much it costs. For $30-40, that would be a really useful item…”
[Sees “early bird” pricing]
“Maybe I should buy another AimPoint sight…”
We have seen a picatinny rail on a muzzle device, a bipod that goes under your grip, and a butt stock that holds a Glock. No one can possibly out derp these.
“hold my beer”
–ModZero
TL;DR.. I am a plebian.
This is certainly an interesting approach. Maybe I am missing something, but it seems that if you have a quality optic, simply placing it back in the same position on the rifle and adjusting to predetermined zero would be just as effective. If I have an one ACOG for two rifles, I would simply annotate that the ACOG zero is for each rifle. Isn’t that the point of the internal windage/elevation turrets?
I could see an application for squeezing more MOA out of otherwise standard optic mounts/rails for long distance shooting.
Am I missing the mark here?
Hi Ale,
You aren’t a plebian. That is one approach to solving this problem, however it is not necessarily scalable nor a function time independent.
Scalable as in, your referenced approach works for ~two rifles per scope (depending on the marks). To scale it up you would need a more complicated approach with dope recordings. Then if you increase this to several scopes, the “memory” burden multiplies.
Time-independent = your stated approach does not allow immediate swapping.
User error potential is also a consideration. Ours is set and forget. Set scope to common zero, set rifle to common zero. Swap freely.
We always describe our product with 1 scope 2 rifles for starters in order to explain the core concept of the common zero. In reality, the value add really kicks in when you have 2 scopes, 3 rifles, and two of our mounts.
Thank you for your comment.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BYJuF5wDF9l
Aesthetically, as an engineer, I understand the appeal of creating the same precision reference base on each firearm.
I checked out the pricing on the website. It’s $350 a pop for individual mounts. If you have three long guns, you can get a $1,050 “deal” for three mounts.
But if you have three long guns, and that kind of money to burn, you most likely have dedicated scopes on each weapon that best suit the purpose of each weapon. For example, the scope on your 5.56 AR build would most likely be very different than the scope on your 6.5 Creedmoor hunting rifle.
So even though this is appealing to me, I don’t see it being very practical.
Hi Idahoboy,
If you have three rifles, then you only need two of our mounts. You would zero your scopes to rifle 1, then rifle’s 2 and 3 would be set to the zero of rifle 1.
On our indiegogo page you can also see our preorder special of $600 for three mounts.
I would also add, this is just subjective, that people with that money are used to spending that money on dedicated scopes. Most shooters like to own guns, not a collection of T2s, trijicons, nightforces, etc. They again, just a discussion point.
We’re also very used to having the 1 scope per gun experience, so choose the best scope for 1 application type mindset. Why not take your high power scope and run it on your 5.56 AR during a range session for training or fun? It’s really about giving you more options while trying to make high quality scopes a price reasonable option.
It’s an interesting concept. If I went to MIT I’d go look up the desktop metal guys and ask them to 3d print them on their fancy prototype production machine so I could sell them at a lot cheaper. Assuming MIM parts would stand up to the task.
That desktop metal machine has the potential to revolutionize boutique firearm manufacturing.
The particular issue in this case is the requirement for precision machined components to make the system repeatable. Even after molding, you’d still need to machine the surfaces. Adding cost.
Yes has potential to revolutionize boutique firearm industry.
Seen many awesome metal additive machines over the years through different research groups. None are yest feasible for prototyping or production for out application. There’s other supply chain complications too with the technology.
Super cool to see though.
Back in the ’60’s I had a scope, think it might have been a Nikon, maybe, Which had no internal adjustments. The scope was adjusted through the mount, you could quick-detach (the scope) and put it on multiple rifles all of which you have sighted in the mount previously. It was a great setup and wish I still had the Sako 6mm Rem and 700 BDL 7 mm Mag it was on.
if you’re running cheapo or mid range optics, this may be a waste. However, I can’t be the only one for whom $2000+ dollar glass on all my guns is just not gonna happen. This might be a way to get one really nice scope and easily move between guns. I could see getting one really nice one to put on my 22-250, 308 and 6.5.
Seems like a pretty good idea. On the expensive side sure, but good quality always costs a bit of money. I guess if you think you can get quality optics and mounts for $225 on each rifle then this product is not for you. I think this is a great idea and I could see this as a potential replacement for traditional mounts. Esp. you like good quality or high end optics, one excellent scope to share between rifles..
I figure you are already spending close to (or over) $100 on good scope mounts/rings/rails so I don’t see another 100 or 125 as a huge issue
The biggest advantage I see is with MSRs that have interchangeable barrels for different calibers, like the Tavor, MCX, Windham, ARAK, SR-556, etc. You could change your barrel from 5.56 to .300 Blackout to 9mm to <insert favorite flavor) and then just change the dial to the corresponding caliber. 1 rifle, 1 scope, a bucket full of barrels.
Looks like an interesting product.
Another way to accomplish this goal is one that dedicated shooters have been using for quite some time now. A laminated card with zero and DOPE for each rifle the optic will mount on. This is good for not just one optic, many rifles, but also few optics, few rifles.
There are several websites with multiple versions of these cards free to download and print. The data book is a lost art.
Why is every one how ordered this scope mount getting their money back?
Comments are closed.