Telescope Reviews: Half Hitch v. Stellarvue M6 v. DM

I own a HH pre-production mount and a HH II with DSC's and SkyCommander. I owned and sold my DM-6, which also was equipped with DSC's and the Sky Commander.

The DM-6 is a wonderful mount and I sold it only because it was quite heavy, and although it could handle a scope as large as my TOA130 or 140EDF (with the right set of legs) I pretty much decided that - given the weight and size of these scopes plus the DM6 - I might as well just use a GEM. Once that decision was made, the DM-6 was just overkill for my remaining scopes (i.e., a 105 and smaller).

The DM-4 is the obvious choice for the 105 but at that point I just wanted to try something different and the HH caught my eye. I purchased a pre-pro version at a great price with the reason being that I could see it up close and field test it. I now use it routinely for my SV50 (50mm) Solarscope and with a TV76. The 105 was a bit much for the pre-pro mount but that is what I was told by Charles from the beginning. It is the very essence of what grab and go should be, and mated to a set of Gitzo CF (GT2530 in this case), it is ideal for this purpose with my smaller refractors.

I was quite impressed with the pre-pro mount and so I decided to purchase the higher capacity HH II for the 105mm - plus I wanted the DSCs. It is a wonderful mount from a variety of standpoints. What I really like about HH mounts - other design features aside - are the "slo mo" (not really slo-mo) controls. I know and appreciate the arguments that you don't need xy controls with a Discmounts and while "true", I prefer them, plain and simple but that is a personal preference and YMMV. The HH II easily handles my Traveler. The damping characteristics are excellent and the mount is highly rigid and solid - a lot of thought has gone into the design.

I have had no trouble viewing at Zenith with the 105EDF and HH II. My favorite legs for this mount is the Gitzo 5530s (or Berlebach UNI24 if weight is not an issue). The DSC's and SkyCommander in both the DM and HH work great. Having owned both types of mount I would say that the DM is probably the simpler to set-up and balance but not by much - and after you've got either set to your liking you are pretty much done.

Some may not like the "look" but the HH II is just a beautiful piece of machining and the tolerances are most impressive - they would have to be given the accuracy and rigidity (and most importantly - orthogonality for DSCs) of the HH II, the DM manages the same with those big bearing surfaces and the 2 axes very close together (beautifully simple design). I'm no machinist but after looking at and using a HH, I really have to ask myself how it can be made for what Charles charges. Yes, I know it is expensive but from a materials, machining and assembly standpoint - I don't have any problems justifying its worth.

Both mounts are "backlash" free, the DM by its very design and the HH by its tight tolerances and "Crayford-like" bearing surfaces. They are both great mounts and either DM-4 or HH II would be a nice match for your scope. The Lapides Modified Tak Teegul is also a very nice mount but DSCs are tougher to deal with and probably aren't going to be as accurate as on the DM or HH.