I am in need of purchasing a mount system for a Remington 700 ADL in .270 Winchester. Do you prefer two piece mounts or the one piece mount?

Thanks.

One mount that I have used for a Rem 700 that I like is the Leupolod 2 piece throwlever mount. The one with the single post on each ring. These mounts allow you to remove and replace the scope with 100% return to zero. Thus you can have 2 [or more] scopes fitted to your rifle, plus you can put your scope in your carry on when flying keeping the baggage apes from damaging your scope. I have used several sets of these mounts with excellent results.
I used them on my Whitworth 375 and 458, as well as a 300, 340 and a 416 WBY magnum.
Leupold advised me these are the strongest "hunting" mounts they make.

Check out the Talley one-piece mounts. They are light weight and strong.

http://www.talleyrings.com/al.htm

Where are you at in s.e. idaho?

Ilike the Talley's also, but the 2 piece. Have always prefered 2 piece mounts, just look a lot cleaner to me......

Since I found Talleys, I dont think the others are in the same game!

Like Fish30114 I also prefer the 2 piece style (two separate rings that mount to the action) but Talley calls them "one piece" on their website. I think that this to reflect that this is not a separate base and ring system but rather an integral system.

I like dual dovetail Leupie mounts. They are some of the most attractive mounts IMO.

There are piles of good mounts on the market. If you go w/ Leupie, Burris, Talley, Weaver Grand Slam, Redfield, etc, you'll be getting good mounts.

Good Luck

Reloader

I generally consider two-piece bases superior to one-piece bases for the following reasons:

* Two-piece bases are lighter

* Two piece bases are held on by 4 screws instead of the usual 3 with a one-piece base

* One piece bases tend to obstruct the loading port

I favor the Weaver system as they are light, strong, inexpensive, field detachable and universal meaning that there are many rings that fit the Weaver style base.

Today I am using the newish Weaver Quad Lock rings.

I'm with NE450 on the Leupold mounts...he's describing the QR mount and I love them. I got sick to my stomach one day when I figured over 40% of my gun collection value was scopes. Now I share scopes between guns using the QR mount. On several of my wby's I can just swap it out without loosening a ring. On others I have to loosen a ring but with one ring tight it keeps everything in alignment and makes the swap go in about 2-3 minutes including a quick boresight. I keep several high power scopes around for load development....several low power scopes for Wisconsin woods hunting....and several medium powder ballistic plex scopes for general hunting. It puts those "scope investments to work"!! And, keeps the overall investment DOWN.

Hey 300winnie, I have both 1-piece and 2-piece Bases on my rifles. Just depends on the particular rifle.

I've used a bunch of different manufactures Rings and styles over the years. Weaver "style" rings are an excellent design as are Dual Dovetail - as they attach to the Base. But there can still be torsional pressure on the scope tube due to minute mis-alignment.

The Redfield style Bases basically have only the Front Ring holding the scope, so I'd encourage you to avoid them on any rifle with a good bit of recoil and a heavy scope.

But since I've used my first set of Burris Signature Rings with the Synthetic Inserts, I doubt that I will buy any other kind. Way too many advantages of the Burris Signatures over any other Rings made.

A friend has recommended Warne mounts and I´ve ordered them for my BRNO mod 21. They look good and people have been happy with them so why not?

Apel makes some really good detachable monts that I have on my .416, .375, 9.3 and 6.5. never had a problem with then.

quote:

The Redfield style Bases basically have only the Front Ring holding the scope, so I'd encourage you to avoid them on any rifle with a good bit of recoil and a heavy scope.

HC, I'd like to know why you've made that observation on the Redfields?

While not really hard kickers by any means, I've had quite good success w/ Steel Redfield two piece systems on 7RM and 300WM w/o any hang-ups. They are interchangable w/ weaver, leupie, and burris std mounts and to me are of the same quality as them as well. The thing I like about the Redfield steel rings is the bearing surface on the scope tube is wider vs some of the other manus which makes for a good hold w/ less chance for ring marks IMO if properly lined. I agree std mounts may not be as strong as DD but, if you go w/ windage adjustables the Redfields will hang w/ the rest of the pack.

Just ordered another set of RF one piece base and medium rings for a friends 300WM 700. They now have the torx head screws like leupold which is a plus IMO.

Have a Good One

Reloader

I have replaced more than one set of RF style bases with the windage screw in the back. Anything as heavy or heavier than a 300Win with eventually shear off the windage screws. I replaced them with custom mounts for the Talleys. They will LAST!

quote:

I have replaced more than one set of RF style bases with the windage screw in the back. Anything as heavy or heavier than a 300Win with eventually shear off the windage screws. I replaced them with custom mounts for the Talleys. They will LAST!

Jim, I don't doubt that they will slip if not mounted properly but, If the scope is mounted properly, it should never slide rearward in the rings even under a good bit of recoil. If a very stiff tightening of the torx screws will not hold the tube then, an adhesive needs to be added to the rings to grip the tube. I've never had a scope slide in the rings even on light magnum rifles after the screws were very snug.

Reloader

quote:

Originally posted by Reloader:
...if you go w/ windage adjustables the Redfields will hang w/ the rest of the pack....

Hey Reloader, I'd guess Jim Kobe and I've seen something similar with those "Redfield Style" mounts.

Not real sure how long ago I noticed it happening, nor which rifle originally did it. But after seeing it happen the second time, I immediately began replacing them with Dual Dovetails - which have their own problems.

What happens is you can get a nice tight grip on the scope with the Rear Ring, but down where that Ring is held in place on the Base, it is just designed poorly. The Scope is actually only held "securely" in position by the Front Ring in it's Dovetail Slot, not the Rear Ring.

With the combination of a Scope with decent glass(mass), a light rifle and a somewhat noticable recoil(depends on the person), the Scope will begin moving Forward during Recoil.

Here is what happens: The scope will attempt to remain where it is at the time of the shot(Newton's Law) while the rifle is in Recoil and that causes the Scope to slip through the Front Ring and at the same time "tear through" the Heads of the two opposing screws which "attempt" to hold the Rear Ring in place.

NOTE: There is a fix for this poor design, but it requires adding a Screw directly ahead of the Rear Ring on the Rear Base so the Rear Ring rams into it. This means "precision" drilling and tapping for the proper location on the Rear Redfield Style Base.

If you grip the Scope tube tight enough to hold it with the Front Ring, you must remove metal from the Ring "Mounting Tab" to tighten it's grip. Now you can get a good grip, but it damages the Scope Tube.

You can also try monkeying around with Rosin, Sand, various adhesives, Tape, whatever you desire but it can still happen, or damage the Scope Tube.

Dual Dovetails and ALL OTHER RINGS (except the Burris Signatures) really need to be Lapped-In-Place in order to insure proper "Ring Alignment" for the Scope Tube. If you Lap too much, then the Mount Tabs must be Sanded to re-obtain enough "grip" on the Scope Tube.

If you do not Lap any regular(non-Burris Signature) set of Rings, then you get uneven Stresses on the Scope Tube in multiple directions at the same time.

I've got a good number of Scopes with "Tube Scars" from moving them around from rifle to rifle over the years. Needless to say, that kind of stress on the actual Scope Tube is detrimental to long term reliability.

Look at any of the Rings made and you can see mounting problems with them that were not addressed until the Burris Signature Rings came along. No Lapping is needed. Minute mis-alignment is corrected for. Excellent grip on the tube without the need for any adhesives(etc.) or gorilla-gripping the screws. Not a single chance of maring the Tube with the actual Rings.

If there is gross mis-alignment(due to the Barrel/Receiver connection, misaligned Base Mounting Screw Holes, slightly out of square Receiver, normal manufacturing tolerances for all mating pieces, etc.), Eccentric Inserts are available to correct the issue without any high dollar GunSmith visits. And the Eccentric Inserts can be rotated to allow for a "Tapered Base Effect" which is a HUGE advantage in long distance shooting.

For folks that understand there is more to mounting a Scope than just laying it in a Ring and screwing it tight, once they try a set of Burris Signature Rings, they won't be using anything else.
---

Anyone that can not visually see what I'm trying to describe would do well to visit the Burris Web Site and check out the Design for yourself. It resolves multiple mounting problems that "none" of the other Scope mount designs have the ability to address.

I "discovered" the Signature rings a year or two ago and put three or so into use. They are good for some things but are heavy, bulky and not that pretty. For some guns they could be the best.

The design could use a better screw as the 6-48 will snap off and is not readily detachable. It's too bad that they could not use the Weaver system to clamp the ring to the base.

HC,

There's definitely an art to getting rings aligned before dropping the scope in but, it can be done and lapping is not needed all of the time as long as the rings are straight. I have personally never seen an effect on a scopes performance by very slight misalligments in the rings. I've seen target guns w/ slightly out of line rings that applied stresses when tightened yet they still shot itty bitty groups. I still have to disagree w/ the scope slipping bit, if the scope is slipping the rings aren't tight enough or you need new rings. Lapping also increases the chances of slippage.

I don't think lapping is wrong, just not needed.

You can over-do just about anything. many times it doesn't hurt but, it doesn't help either. Just about like turning necks, flashhole deburring, primer pocket uniforming, case weight seperation down to the tenth, etc., etc.

Have a Good One

Reloader

My short reply is; two piece. It allows the reloading of cartridges into the magazine easier without the probability that you will snag your thumb on the web between the front and rear mounting base on the one piece.

Two piece! It looks claener and doesn't obstruct the loading port.