Telescope Reviews: TV102 on Half Hitch smoothness Youtube video link

I have owned a Lapides Modified Teegul (with after market 6" slo-mo knobs) and a DM-6 and have tried them with multiple scopes. My best short answer is this: I still own a Half-Hitch II but the Teegul and DM-6 are now sold.

I've posted about this a few times in past so I'll just point out a couple things again. All 3 mounts are excellent and each has its "exceptional" qualities. Without question, none operate as smoothly as the HH and the "motion" knobs (they aren't really "slo-mo") are superb: responsive, completely backlash-free, and great for high mag tracking of solar system objects. Factor in the weight, highly accurate DSC's and rigidity and you have an unbeatable grab and go package, which is clearly what Charles had set out to accomplish when he designed it (and he is still tinkering and tweaking the design).

The Teegul is an interesting mount. I really liked mine a lot (by the way, my reference OTA for this Teegul and HH comparison is a 105 Traveler with Mark V BV). It was also "smooth" (all 3 of these mounts are) and surprisingly easy to balance (depending on saddle plate/saddle used). The stock slo-mo knobs are poorly positioned IMO (and plastic!!) but when extended with 6" aluminum knobs they were a delight to use. It was also easy to track at high mags with these controls and although they do have some "backlash", this doesn't really diminish their utility. The tightening/tensioning screws were surprisingly effective and helped a lot with eyepiece changes and other balance issues. It is hard to argue with this mount as being anything other than a solid, utilitarian performer - perhaps the pick of the 3 if budget is most important. If you want DSC's, however, I think your options are limited with the Teegul unlike the HH and DM-4/6, which were clearly designed with DSCs in mind.

The DM-6 is a triumph of clean, "simple" and solid design. If it is heavy artillery you want to mount on an Alt/Az, this may be what you are looking for. I used this mount with an NP101 (with one of Tom P's excellent tripods), TOA 130 and an AP 140. The Tak and AP are both beasts and while the DM-6 was up to the task you really require a serious set of legs or pier. I used it with a Berlebach UNI24 but the big OTAs really needed more - probably a G11 tripod or Berlebach Planet for example. I wasn't happy with all that weight off to the side with the big scopes but the NP101 worked beautifully with the DM-6. All that you hear about the DM-6 is pretty much true. When balanced up correctly it is smooth, jiggle free and accurate (i.e., DSCs). The orthogonality of this mount is the key I guess, it is like the rock of Gibraltar. Stiction is minimal as it should be, and you can swap out a little planetary EP with a Volkswagen and I think it would hold steady - ok, I'm exaggerating, perhaps something a little lighter like a Nag 31. On the downside, the DM-6 is bowling ball heavy and it lacks slo-mo controls (and I know the argument that it doesn't need them - but I personally like them). To be fair, the DM-4 is probably the mount for comparison to the Teegul and HH (weight complaint goes away) but it still lacks slo-mo and puts the scope off to the side (the Teegul does too but it is narrower and on a 6" platform it is less of a concern). I wasn't thrilled with selling the DM-6 but at the end of the day my reasoning went as follows: if I'm going to drag out the AP 140 for visual and have to lug out the DM-6 and a G11 quality tripod to do so, I might as well use my GEM instead. No way is an ~ AP140 or TOA 130 ever going to be a grab and go, LOL.

You aren't going to be making an egregious error going with any of these 3 mounts. On balance though, I just like the design philosophy, build and especially the smoothness/performance of the HH II with my particular set-up. Your mileage may/will vary. In any event, the HH comes with clear instructions for set-up and set-up is pretty easy but you gotta set it up right for it to perform like a dream.

And as I always like to point out when discussing quality mounts, the tripod is a critical but often underemphasized requirement for high performance. My advice - simply don't skimp on a set of legs. Personally, I think ~$500 (new) is the "entry level" cost of a quality tripod for these mounts. I may get grief for saying this but I have tried a lot of tripods as well and when it comes to wood - Berlebach and AP/Baader set the standard IMO; and for CF - Gitzo 3 or 5 series.