Recent base and ring discussions have still left me with questions -

I have always used Weaver (cross-slot) bases in the belief that the massive recoil shoulders on both bases add up to massive strength. Yes, there are ring attachment screws, but I've never had a problem with them coming loose.

Lately I've been seeing a lot of folks post that their double-dovetail system is "the strongest." Sometimes they qualify the statement to say that there are fewer screws to come loose - true, but is there some other reason for the belief in the DD's great strength?

Notwithstanding the title of the thread, I'd like to know opinions of the strengths and weaknesses of the different kinds of mounting system.

Jaywalker

No one knows what makes double-dovetail strong?

Jaywalker

Hey Jaywalker, I've used a bunch of different kinds over the years and the Weavers are indeed pretty solid. Between the Dual Dovetails and the Weavers, the "weak" point is the same - the #6 Base Screws. I still use some Weavers.

If you go to the Redfield Style mounts, the two opposing screws in the Rear Base barely holding the Ring are the weak link. If you have enough recoil, the Rear Ring can be pounded through this illusion of retention. The scope needs to "slip" within the Front Ring for this to happen, but basically, the Front Ring is really the only one holding the Scope with any authority in this style.

Best I've ever used are the Burris Signatures. You can get them to fit Weaver Style Bases which are refered to as the Signature Z-Rings and the Dual Dovetail Signatures as well. Don't remember if they make a Redfield Style or not, but you wouldn't really want them anyhow.

Here again, the "weak links" in the Signatures are the #6 Base Screws.

JayWalker, there's a reason "tactical" rifles are generally set up with the Weaver style arrangement... it's darn strong and allows scopes to be swapped out.

As to DD's, I have one friend that had the "dovetails" sheer off on a hard kicker. I've never heard of anything like that on a Weaver set up.

Me, I use all-steel Weaver bases JB Welded to the receiver and Burris Zee's. Possibly the ultimate in strength and simplicity (other than Rugers) are the Talley Lightweight's. I'm convinced the Talley's are stronger than the DD's.

You also didn't mention that the front ring on Redfield style rings is weak at the dovetail on the ring. At the base of the ring where the dovetail is narrowest, is the weak link in that particular ring. I'm not saying these rings are worthless, but coupled with the opposing rear screw setup on the rear ring, I don't particularly care for them. They are heavier than Weavers, and I've yet to find a rifle that won't align with Weavers, unless something was waaaay off.
I'll stick with Weaver style.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby:
You also didn't mention that the front ring on Redfield style rings is weak at the dovetail on the ring. At the base of the ring where the dovetail is narrowest, is the weak link in that particular ring.

Bobby, that's the spot I was referring to when I mentioned a friend's rifle that "had the dovetails sheer off."

DD's are not "Redfield style" in totallity. DD's use the Redfield-style front ring arrangement for both front and rear.

Still, I can't like the system and definately am no fan of the original Rediefld system either.

Brad,

That's always been my concern, too, for the DD: two small points of contact.

OTOH, I could be wrong. Why do others extol their strength?

Jaywalker

quote:

Hey Jaywalker, I've used a bunch of different kinds over the years and the Weavers are indeed pretty solid. Between the Dual Dovetails and the Weavers, the "weak" point is the same - the #6 Base Screws. I still use some Weavers.

Exactly.Those screws are much smaller and weaker than the dovetails on the rings.

Stubble, I believe that's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. If you degrease and epoxy the entire base, screws and all, the point is moot... it ain't going anywhere. I've proven that time and again with hard kickers.

I used the standard Weaver system for years with no problems on some really heavy recoiling rifles but have now gone to the Weaver style Leupold system and I do think it is better. Also for strength the standard base screws should be replaced with 8-40's.

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
Stubble, I believe that's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. If you degrease and epoxy the entire base, screws and all, the point is moot... it ain't going anywhere. I've proven that time and again with hard kickers.

I am simply stating that the screws are the weakest link,especially for the overwhelming majority of people that do not epoxy the bases to the actions.

Jaywalker, I wonder if some of the folks you are referring to are discussing a dual dovetail system such as the integral double dovetails on Tikka's, CZ's and SAKO's. I have a bunch of SAKO rifles, and their dual dovetail integral bases are integrally milled into the receiver, and cannot be beat for strength.

If it's typical dual dovetail rings, like Leupolds most popular system, than I guess the other posts address that.

Mark, when you replace your base screws with 8x40's (from 6x32's ) what do you use to open up the screw holes in the bases. I have tried to use a drill, but it eliminates the square sholder for the cap screw at the bottom of the base/screw hole. I have considered changing a few of my rigs to 8x40's, I have a bunch of Talley's, and I think their standard 'base screw' is in fact 6x32, and I would like to change that on a couple of my rigs at least.

Thanks--Don

Fish, Fair enough. I'm referring to the the add-on bases typified by this Leupold double dovertail base. The Sako dovetails fall into an entirely different category - I don't have one...

Mark, Would you please post a link to the "Weaver style Leupold system" you mean, and why it's better?

Jaywalker

Fish

I've always had someone else rebore the receiver and the bases. I don't really have the tools of talent to be boring holes in my rifle receivers.

Jaywalker

Midway http://www.midwayusa.com has the Leupold Weaver style system. Rings page 744 in the Master Catalog bases page 747.

I started using just the Leupold bases "QRW"'s because they were steel. The Weaver aluminum bases eventually on hard kicking rifles will have the cross slot widen at the top from the slight movement of the rings in recoil no matter how they were tightened. Later on I bought a pair of matching leupold rings "QRW"'s
and there just nicer, they give you a little more leeway in mounting since they have a narrower ring and they are much easier to use when aligning the cross hairs during mounting because the scope does not have a tendency to roll toward the ring screws as with the standard Weaver rings.

Weaver also now makes a new system with steel components that I'm using and it seems very strong.

Of course these all steel systems are heavier so for a guy bulilding a rifle where every ounce counts perhaps the original Weaver system is still the best going.

Mark

Mark, Okay, I get it. Thanks. I haven't noticed any aluminum widening, but I have not doubt it could happen.

I started using aluminum bases years ago on purpose. Right or wrong, my reasoning was that if something, i.e., the weakest link, had to fail, I'd prefer it to be something cheap to replace - like $3 bases. Much preferable to an expensive scope, receiver, or even rings, for that matter. OTOH, just because something's reasonable doesn't mean it's right...

Jaywalker

I doubt that there is much difference in any of the rings and bases out there today, at least within certain perimeters...

I have had trouble with Weaver rings turning the scopes in time and use, as they tighten on one side, but weaver now offers a double side tightening system for that very reason...the problems I had with them was that they turned if you kept the rifle in the PU or used them a lot on horseback, both very strenious on rings and bases....

I had serious problems with the Warne lever flipping out of position and blocking the bolt upthrust on my DGRs and that was serious, but only on the Mauser, the others can utilize the levers on the bolt off side....

Some Redfield, Leupold, Buehler type mounts loose accruacy over time by wear as do some claw type mounts, the claws can be fixed and the Redfield types are cheaper and can be replaced...Jack Belk tells me that you lose 20% of your accuracy the minute you use this type of mount the second time...so you need to put them on and leave them there according to him.

The dual dovetails are the strongest by comparison, but again they can wear and lose accuracy and are not detactable which I require...

The point? nothing made by man is 100% perfect...

Find a set you like the looks off, has a good reputation and use them, at least until you decide you need something else....

My favorite rings and bases are the old Kimbers, and the old Brownells, mostly because the bases are very small and low and do not interfere with the use of iron sights..The Talleys are excellent if used in coordination with the Brockman peep or the Talley slip on peep sight, but they do interfere with normal iron sights as they are too high.,....

On a varmint rifle the leupold dual dovetail is an excellent choice, or for those that don't have to have QD mounts, I just don't happen to be one of those...

Ray,

Regarding replacements, I've wondered what would be the effect of turning in a second set of double-dovetail rings into a single D-D base. It would seem that the act of turning it in would affect both the rings and the bases to the detriment of the accuracy of both. Is that what Belk meant (with a single dovetail, of course)?

Jaywalker