Howdy folks. I have a lever rifle in 45/70 that I need to add a small, compact scope to. (And no, I am NOT going to Africa with this gun!) I wasn't sure if good ol' Weaver style bases and rings would hold up to the recoil, or should a Leupold, Burris or Tally system be used?

I would like to hear from those that have experience in the area of scoping the heavy-kickers. Why do you use the base/ring system you do? Thanks- steve

Steve,
I use Weaver Bases and rings on my Marlin 444 with no problems. Hope this helps. Bryan

I'm using Weaver rings and bases on a Siamese Mauser (45/70) that I recently built. No problems whatsoever after 100 rounds (including some pretty warm loads). The Weaver system is very stout. Their rings aren't real pretty compared to some others, but they sure do hold.

I used weavers on my 45/70 for the first couple of hundred rounds with no problems what so ever.

The smaller and lighter the scope, the less inertia it has under recoil. The rings will hold, but having the receiver holes opened up to 8-40 (and the bases drilled out to match) will increase the shear strength significantly.

George

Thanks for the replies. I decided to try the Burris Signature base and rings. Simply because most weaver style rings have that knob that sticks out and would make the rifle feel sorta bulky.

steve

I have Talleys on my 30-30 Marlin and keep a Talley slip on peep taped (black electriction tape) to the Leupold alaskan scope, behind the adjustments, so I can use irons at a moments notice..Its a nice set up, or rather it works well..

I used Weavers on a 45-70 with hot loads and no trouble.

That being said, my preference is either Talley or Leupold QR.

The only problem I have encountered with Weavers is if you pack a gun horse back many miles the horozontal cross hair tends to give to the screw side and slants down in time...same if you keep it in the truck all the time...That always bothered me...but it does not happen overnight, its that constand viberation that lets the scope move and no amount of glue, stickum tape or anything will stop it...I doubt that it changes the impact but it is bothersome to me.

I used to use the Burris Signature rings. They worked fine, but you cannot get the lowest scope mounting with them, especially if you jave a small objective scope.

The Leupold QRW can get you right down on the rifle.

So you guys are saying that the Weaver bases and low rings would be lower to the receiver compared to the Burris base and low Burris rings?

Reason I ask- I have a few sets of low Weaver rings and the local shops carry Weaver bases. No big deal to just slap on of those on. I was hoping to get a "cleaner" look by going with a Burris base, in fact, I really would have liked to purchase the Talley base and rings from Brownell's, but gotta draw the line somewhere.

Thanks again for the replies.

steve

Weaver brand bases and rings are usually crap.

The Burris Zee rings can be had very low (even lower than QRW), but you really should lap the rings to remove stresses. They are steel.

The Burris Signature series are taller as they have to leave room for the plastic eyeball that makes them self-aligning.

I used Warne bases on my M70 because they seemed to be the lowest base available. (That was 2-3 years ago and not many steel Weaver-style bases were avalable for the M70 Classic Super Express.

The Weaver brand rings and bases may not look all that elegant , but they do work .........do the Burris zee rings still have the round cross pin ?



If so , the mating of a round cross pin with the square notch in the weaver style bases would be real crap in my view . I think it's likely that steel Weaver bases mated with regular Weaver rings that have the square steel cross pin would stand up to more recoil than a set up with Zee rings.........