As I mentioned in the Big-Bores forum, I've just acquired an old but well-preserved 2.5x Leupold Compact. If, as Ray Atkinson believes, it is the most stable modern scope, I suspect it is first because there is less to get bumped and the erector tube is possibly shorter than usual, making less to be leveraged by recoil inertia.

I wanted it as an emergency in case my slightly longer Nickel Supralyt 2.5x ever gives trouble on the Zastava 9.3x62.

The issue, however, is that the Burris Universal mounts' Signature rings are quite wide apart, meaning the front of the front one would have to be just behind the gold ring and the back of the rear ring just in front of the focus thread.

Is it OK to to tighten rings in these locations, or is there some risk of crushing the objective lens or erector-tube gimbal?

Thanks in anticipation ...

If you don't want to take any chances invest in an offset base/ring setup for the front.

No issues installed as shown on my 458 WM Remington 798 (Zastava LKM70 barreled action in Remington laminate stock) torqued to spec.

Thanks guys,
though I was hoping to use the existing rings, I do have one of those Burris extension ones, so maybe I could put that in the kit. The pity is it's not one of the Signature ones so adds complications like scratching, need of a mandrel etc.

Does anyone know how close you can use ordinary rings to the front end?

I wouldn't put the front ring on the objective joint (30-06 Sako 85 Bavarian Carbine).

PS: Looking at my rifle now, 4sixteen, I see that my rear mount base has the ring at the front, not the back as on yours. Though my front ring is slightly forward of centre over the receiver ring, it looks as though the distances between our mounts are the same, assuming your rifle has a standard-length action. So, with luck I could put the front Signature ring in the same place. Thanks

PPS: The set-up on mine looks more like that on your Sako, except that I assume your Sako has a long action.

I have those scopes on many rifles and due to their light weight they don't require as tight of ring so I tighten the rear ring normally and only firm up the front one when it is over the lens.
Has worked on my 458 now for over 35 years !

I have checked the scope against my mounts and see that the front mount would be about 3mm behind the scope's gold ring, cf 4sixteen's Sako set up. I'm surprised it's not farther back, as in his Zastava, but since the Sako works it should be OK.

That's a good thought, 458Win. Mine would be mounted in the plastic inserts of Burris Signature rings, which may be gentler but also need more tightness to hold well.

Does anyone know a suitable inch/pound level for those rings when possibly over objective lenses?

Use two extension rings on short scopes if one doesn't work..or invest in a pair of custom made QD mounts..at least on a big bore..Lots of options for your question, some costly, other not so much, but on a DG rifle its a must IMO..As in one picture above the front ring is only half way on the base, I wouldn't feel comfortable with that, even if it worked..

Thanks Ray, I'll take your advice on board.

Hoping you're well
- 'Sam'

From memory Nakihunter damaged the objective lens on his small Leupold when fitted to his CZ 416 Rigby with the front ring over or close to the objective lens.

I haven't had any issues with my EER Leupold fitted on my 404J, the front ring is well back from the objective lens as so;

I suspect 458 has the answer or at least one good option, inasmuch as its worked for 35 years and I assure you he uses the crap out of his rifles..The other option is one extended base has to work as well as anything else. I use a lot of Leupold 3X and they are a tad short depending on how long your arms are, LOP comes into play on this subject..

Actually, I'm having trouble with that Nickel set-up already - not the scope itself but the Burris Universal base. For some reason the rear Signature ring has moved forward in the cone screws, despite my fitter/turner mate and I tightening them with pliers on my neat-fitting, filed-flat coin after the first time it happened.

The local guru on such matters advised against such tightening in case it distends metal from the ring out the bottom, causing excess elevation. However, my buddy thinks the problem may be that the cone screw threads have got bent bent, meaning he'll have to make new ones.

After that we're thinking of drilling a hole down through the front of the ring and/or base to be filled with a roll pin to stop the ring moving forward.

Any thoughts on this?

Strangely, the Burris cone screws are bigger than the Redfield ones that kept rock solid on my 338 magnum for 33 years.