I think it's interesting, I'm not sure I see a use case, then again rifle shooters are paying $2000 for chassis, $800 for bipods, $400 handguards, and $300 for muzzle brakes, tripod clamps, and tripod plates to mount stuff on, $100 for a simple arca plate, etc.. So clearly marketing to rational spending customers is not a concern, so $400 is probably too cheap
That said I'm all about seeing new tech being applied.
The NF unimount is basically the same weight, years of use/abuse have shown it more than strong enough. I'd bet most of the higher quality AL one piece mounts the scope or action/rail mount screws would fail before the mount itself would if subject to the same testing. So it doesn't really seem to provide a "needed" strength advantage.
No one in the PRS/long range game is concerned about a few ounces of scope mount weight on their 22lb 6mm. Even for weight weenies (what we called them in the mountain biking world) trying to build ultralight hunting rigs, nothing is going to be lighter than a direct mount setup like NF etc. because you're dropping 3-4oz of rail weight. Even individual rings on a rail are going to be lighter than a 1 piece mount on a rail.
Going more "techy" would be interesting, looking at things like:
1) Will the uneven expansion between the rail/mount, and rings/optic cause issues? If you torque them on a steel rail and aluminum tube scope at 110F degrees in the summer will they slip when it's -20F because of how much the rail/tube will shrink and the carbon won't. Might not be enough to matter either way.
2) Does the "textured" nature of the carbon fiber "grab" onto the scope tube better, these days it seems like the only real issue people run into is either mounts that slip, or clamps that crack. Many times both are caused by user error.
3) Does the carbon fiber nature of the rings allow them to flex and "even" out slight screw torque differences better than AL/Steel which might also aid in scope tube holding power.
4) Does the mount flex more or less than steel/aluminum, and if so does that mean it's transferring more or less shock/vibration to the optic under recoil. If less that might help with long term scope durability, but if it's more it may increase failure issues with some optics. Again with high quality optics probably doesn't matter but interesting.
Those issues would be more interesting marketing/competitive advantage to me than it's light and strong, because it seems like we already have light/strong mounts available that have proven for years they are already doing more than we need.
