Just wondering,

what are you guys using for rings and bases for your hunting rifles, especially rifles that you would use on remote trips etc?


I am using Warne Q.Release on my .338 and am happy with them.
I have some light weight rings and bases from Gentry and S.K. They are pretty good and serve the purpose. I did have a fall and had a scope go out of alignment with these that I don't think would have happened with heavier set of rings. Hard to say in all sercumstances.
I am also using Leupold QRW's. No complaints there. They are a little heavier.
I do not use Redfield style rings and bases made by anyone, any more. Have had problems with the rear ring coming loose on different guns.
I am not sure about the dual dovetail rings and bases. I have had a portion of dovetail base break off, then the scope was loose. It could have been from me using a Leupold ring on a Redfield base.

Is there anyone making a solid aluminum mount that would be at home on a light weight sheep rifle?



Daryl

Yukoner

I use Talley mount on most of my rifles and they work very good. I also have one set of Burgess mount that is VERY nice.

I prefer mounts were it's easy take off the scope.

Good mounts are worth every single $

/ JOHAN

[ 02-09-2003, 01:25: Message edited by: JOHAN ]

At present the five rifles I hunt with all have Leupold rings and bases, some 1 piece and some 2 piece. I don't really think they are much better or worse than anyone else but they are readily available and reasonably priced.

Yukoner:

I've got Badgers on my three Model 70s. The scope can be removed by utilizing a T type torque wrench and unscrewing the cross bolts that attach the rings to the picatinny base. Foolproof and strong. Yes, they're expensive, but the best always is.
The mounts with the rear windage screw are basically junk. I used to use them. For a more inexpensive alternative to Badgers, check out some of the offerings at www.mountsplus.com or use Leupold quick removeable weaver style bases with the Burris nylon insert rings. I haven't used these but people I respect have recommended them. Just my opinion, guys. Use what ya want.

Daryl

I've got limited experience with numerous types of rings, but I know wha I like.

I recently mounted a set of Talley rings/bases on my Mdl 70 300WSM.

They're a tad heavier than some rings (such as Weaver style) but I think they're great.

Not cheap, but I think I could drive my truk over them and they'd be fine.

For a lightweight rifle maybe the good old Weaver rings would work well. I think they hold scopes pretty nicely but lack the style of the Talleys

Yukoner,

Talley has just recently brought out a one piece R&B that is light = 2oz. or there about. I as several others have mentioned, also like the other offerings of Talley Mfg. including their QD, but these are lighter and do make good sense to me. At $35.00 they dont break the bank either.

HBH

Well, if you want the best mounts for the money, go with Weaver. They're as ugly as that girl you made fun of in high school, but I've put them on some seriously recoiling rifles, and they have ALWAYS held and worked well. - Dan

[ 02-09-2003, 23:24: Message edited by: dan belisle ]

My Howa wears Weaver bases and Burris rings. My Sako wears Luepold rings made to fit the Sako dovetail.

A Weaver base machined out of steel with a set of Burris Signature rings is second only to a setup wehre rings attach directly to the receiver, like Sako, Tikka, CZ, and Ruger.

Yukoner:

I am currently using:

Talley
Warne
Griffin and Howe Side Mount
Leupold Standard on one piece base
Custom engraved Redfield on one piece base

I am giving a lot of thought to QD vs fixed. I've preferred QD in the past but am re-evaluating.

Buliwyf

Nothing but Talley's!

Belisle, you got it said before I could. Weavers get the job done. I degrease the reciever and the screw holes with gun scrubber and then use a little loctite (or some of my wife's clear fingernail polish if I can't find the loctite) as I go and the scope is there to stay.

I like the "detatchability" of the Weaver system, aside from the fact that it is sturdy. I like the Signature Burris rings, because it allows me to center the scope: and a centered scope is much less likely to fail than one adjusted out of center to make up for poor ring alignment.

Of course, a good gunsmith can center a set of rings, but I can't afford enough gunsmiths..... JMO, Dutch.

I keep buying more and more Weaver top mounts. I know they are cheap looking but the design is so good. I use a piece of double stick tape to hold them from recoil.

Mounts that need a special wrench are a problem waiting to happen. I suppose the wrench could be taped to the inside of the floor plate.

I have quite a few older rifles with Buehler mounts. Although they have the opposing rear screw they were made well and seem to work but the Weavers are easy to detach with a coin and are much lighter. I also have Leupold, Ruger and Sako mounts.

A friend who is an engineer commented that he is surprised that few have copied Rugers system of having the mount clamp to the receiver.

If a rifle might need an extension ring try a Weaver as it changes the look from plain to somewhat interesting.

When a mount comes out that is really best I will switch to it. Right now it's Weavers by default.

[ 02-12-2003, 00:30: Message edited by: Savage99 ]

I use three different set ups. My really light set up are Dave Gentry's design. They go about 2.8 ozs. and seem to be pretty strong. Much better than the Refield style with the rear windage screw.
I like and use the Ruger system on a Ruger rifle for the extra scope rifle. Their rings are best lapped.
For a tough set up, w/o a backup, I don't think you can beat the steel, dual dovetail set up and a Leupold 4X scope. I understand they almost never come back. In spite of the fact that they have been made for quite a while now. E

I know they're heavy but Warne Maximas are tough. I have them on my mountain rifle along with Warne bases. They are noticeably heavier than others but once in place they stay there. Last Thursday, I E-mailed Warne for prices on some screws for rings that had heads that were worn from useage. They replied right back asking what I needed and Monday, yesterday I had them in the mail, no charge. I'm sure other manufacturers would probably do likewise but it certainly was a nice gestureon their part. I'm glad, with the exception of one old set of Leupold rings and a base, all I have are Warne.

Joe

How are the looks of the burris rings on the weaver bases? I just bought a 35 whelen that has weaver bases on it already and am looking for rings... specificly, the weaver bases look longer than the thickness of the burris rings so not all of the base would be covered? what do you guys think? Would be cheaper than new bases and rings,

Darrell Holland makes some very nice ltwt mounts that you might want to take a look at...they are 2-piece and the base and bottom half of the rings are one piece. I don't know how they would hold up on a heavy kicker but they are great on my walking varmint rifle.

Talley are for me!

Talley's are some of the best looking and strongest.

I just picked up a new set of the one piece Talley's this weekend. They are awsome!!!! Superlight and machined well. 32 bucks.

Yukoner,

Everbody (including me) has their own likes and dislikes, when it comes to rings and bases.

My critieria for good bases and rings revolve around cost, repeatabilty in remounting, design (low mounting ability), ease of mounting,looks, and workmanship.

What works on one rifle, won't work on another, due to a number of factors.

Those I like:

Leupold QR - fairly inexpensive (compared to Talley's and Warne's) about $70.00 for rings and bases, excellent workmanship, low mounting ability, and very repeatable. The "best" for the money now available. I use these currently on an FN mauser, Rem 700, Weatherby MKV, Pre-64 and post-64 Model 70, White MZloader, and TC Encore.

Leupold QRW - More expensive (about $80.00) and more limited in bases types. Very good and very repeatable. Not a pretty as QR's IMHO.

A better alternative is to use Leupold QRW bases (all steel) and match them with the regular Burris Z-rings. Very light and all steel. This combo brings the whole price down to about $45.00. No levers to get stuck on stuff, and very repeatable. I use them on a Beretta Mato and Savage 110. This is the cheapest and lightest combo that works very in a number of applications.

Talley's = In all probibilty the "best" rings and bases currently made. Tally's have two down-sides. Price well over $125. for bases and rings, and their "low rings" are more like medium's. That is they do not mount very low at all.

Currently use them on a original Oberndorf Sporter in 375 H&H. The bolt will not abide a really low mounted scope, so the Talley's work and look just fine. A little hard than QR's to mount a scope into.

Warne's = not quite as well finished a Talley's, same problem as Talley with scope low mounting and equally expensive. Made in more style's than Talley. Have them on a Cooper Model 21. Many folks seem to have problems with Warne's in some applications (CZ's, Rugers and Sako's). Cannot really recommend them. But some folks think they are the "best". Oh well, each to their own.

Conetrol = Made for the hard to fit rifle. If it was made, Conetrol has bases to fit. Not cheap (selling for around $125.00), and in all probibilty the "best" looking base and ring combination going. Their only problem they are a complete "pain in the ass" to mount. Not really repeatable, unless you like to swear a lot. Also they will "draw blood" if not handled with care. They will add a host of new words to your vocabulary. But I do like the way they look.

Had them on a Steyr Professional, and a custom Sako (Daptar bases). Lack of repeatabilty, finger cuts, and PITA mounting always made me go with something else, if it could be found. But they sure look good.

Standard Redfield, Leupold, Burris, Millet bases and rings. Work fine, look pretty good and are cheap. Not really repeatable, so I tend to use something else. I like to have at least two scopes for every rifle I own, so repeatabilty is a must for me at least.

Weaver = they work, I guess but are ugly (my opinion) and they are the home of crooked crosshairs.

Others:

Never use Dual dovetails so cannot comment.

Have had a number of Sako's and prefer Leupold's Sako rings over Sako's. Easier to mount a scope. About $50.00 a copy.

Talley Bases for Ruger rings. Don't know if they are still made, but are pretty neat and cheap. Had them on .416 Taylor, a couple of TC muzzleloaders.

That's the extent of my use.

Bob

[ 02-19-2003, 21:07: Message edited by: Shadow ]

Does any one have any expeirence with the Control mounts and rings, the Weatherby I was given are set up with them,any good? Or should I replace them?

As Bob said the Conetrols are a complete pain in the ass to deal with. I like the look, but not the engineering. S&K makes mounts that look like Conetrols but are much easier to use. One of my favorite mounts.

I became a BIG Weaver fan in the Army. Our sniper optics were mounted on Picatinny rail, which is nothing but a Weaver in uniform. The US military has done some dumb stuff in the past, but the Picatinny Rail they got right. You'll get over the "ugly" part the first time you put the scope back on your rifle and find that you're still zeroed. Okie John.

While weavers are ugly, and getting the crosshairs verticle/horizontal is a chore, they are a good solid mounts at a reasonable prive. They aren't my favorite, but they work darn well.

I have a set of dual dovetail Leupolds on my contender, and it is a nice ring/base combo. I see it as a good fixed scope set up at a reasonable price.

While I like the design of the ruger integral base, Ruger's tollerances are too sloppy to make it a good system. On my 480 SRH, the frame casting didn't fully fill out, and when the front ring is tightened on the frame, it angles down at a vissible angle.

Where do I find out about the one piece talley ring/base? That will be perfect for several rifles I'll be building. I'd considered machining just such a design from bar stock, but at the $35 price, it just won't be worth the effort.

Weavers are strong, light, cheap and easily detachable. I Changed over to them about 15 years ago and have been completely happy. Properly install they will hold up on the hardest kicking rifle. The only weak spot was the aluminum slotted bases. On hard kicking rifles the leading edge of the slot gets rounded over. I changed mine to the Leupold slotted bases and it makes a great combo. I believe that Weaver now has their own steel bases out.

Paul,

Call Talley and order 'em. I just put a pair of their lightweights on a 338-06 lightwieght I am putting together and they are pretty slick. I am at 7# even with a 2.5-8X Leuplod mounted and it shoots...

Mark, I agree with the Leupold Weaver bases. They are rediculously high priced, but they are the lowest Weaver bases out there. The Weaver brand steel bases are the "Grand Slam" series.

Paul, take a look at some of the "non-weaver" Weaver style rings, some time. Particularly the Burris Signature Zee and the Leupold PRW. There isn't any reason, at all, why it would be hard to get cross hairs straight with them. They work the same as rings for any other base.

FWIW, Dutch.

Gentlemen,
We have now heard the voice of our American friends..
There are some good scope mounts from USA!

BUT!

Nothing from the other side of the Atlantic can compare with a correctly installed German claw mount (Suhler einhaksmontage. They are of course expensive (about USD$ 750 installed on your favorite rifle...), but a handier, nicer looking, more bullet proof construction is yeat to be found!

/Husky

Husky, I am unhappy to disagree with you, but no scope mount is more often more wanting and faulty, than the Suhler Einhakmontage (claw mount). It has a lot of disadvantages, is *very* difficult to do properly, and an invitation to would-bes and tinkerer gunsmiths. The totally prevalent trend in Germany is for EAW mounts (Schwenkmontagen).

Uh, and to a lesser degree the same is true for rings against rail. The latter wins nowadays, technically.

From Germany with regards,
Carcano

[ 02-21-2003, 23:07: Message edited by: carcano91 ]

While EAW mounts are top quality, they, like many things designed in Germany, are needlessly complex.

Weaver/Picatinny style steel bases, with Burris Signature Z rings is a set up as strong or stronger than the EAW, and nowhere near as expensive and complex.

There, that should get a good flame war going...........

carcano:

In one point i agree with you!
The mount has to be done in a CORRECT way! Which is much more complicated to do with a Einhaksmontage than any other scope mount!

But when you find a gunsmith that can do this -they are simply the best

I have one drilling and three rifles with single or double einhaksmontage and are very very saticfied with them!

Second is SAKO.s and Brno.s way to do it with integrated bases in the reciver. If you can find an original Brno scope ring for the ZG 47 you will be totally saticfied!

/Husky

Uhh,
Forgot to say:
I am probably very conservative
Non of my rifles are made after 1960...
All calibers of my rifles dates back to around or earlier than 1910

/Husky

I'll be the voice of reason (cheapness) here. Leupold dual dovetails for anything fixed (which is the vast majority of my rifles). If I feel I need a removable scope (very seldom) I prefer talley's.

I K.I.S.S itperiod.

Usually put Leupold Dual Dove tails on, or Weaver's if it situation warrants it.