The factory CZ rings are well made, but they're somewhat high and pretty heavy. If they came with the gun, I'd use 'em. If not, I'd buy Talleys instead. Talleys are available in either fixed, QD lever, or QD screw configurations. My .416 Rigby will wear a set of the QD lever rings.
Best, Joe
Posts: 144 | Location: Riverview, MI | Registered: 20 January 2003
quote:Originally posted by Recono: That's how I'd call it, too, except that I consider somewhat high and pretty heavy both to be positive qualities, particularly the latter.
Recono-
I think that excess height and weight are both negatives, particularly for a big-bore. The higher and heavier your scope and mount, the more stress you place on the mounting system during recoil. I think huge scopes and high mounts are just plain ugly, too
Best, Joe
Posts: 144 | Location: Riverview, MI | Registered: 20 January 2003
Kboom, Hurrah for Leupold! We'll see what they are like, eh?
Since I have had good luck with the Warne QD and Warne Fixed rings as well as the original old BRNO 602 and the newer CZ 550 factory rings, I am happy with any of these. I have not bothered to get some Talley rings yet but might try them, along with the new Leupolds.
I have the Zeiss 4X scope with the integral mount that Alf has pictured for us above. It came "used" with my BRNO ZKK 602, and is a serviceable QD affair.
quote:Originally posted by Recono: That's how I'd call it, too, except that I consider somewhat high and pretty heavy both to be positive qualities, particularly the latter.
Recono-
I think that excess height and weight are both negatives, particularly for a big-bore. The higher and heavier your scope and mount, the more stress you place on the mounting system during recoil. I think huge scopes and high mounts are just plain ugly, too
Best, Joe
Hey there nextjoe - I don't believe Recono was referring to scope or mounts; I interpret his statement as a comment on breasts.Course, it could be that january is alaska is getting to me............just guessin'
Posts: 1300 | Location: Alaska.USA | Registered: 15 January 2002
quote:Originally posted by KMuleinAK: Hey there nextjoe - I don't believe Recono was referring to scope or mounts; I interpret his statement as a comment on breasts.Course, it could be that january is alaska is getting to me............just guessin'
Good call, KMA. I think like that and write like that, but I wasn't quick enough this time. I was actually talking about mounts (oops, didn't mean to bring that up [oops, another]).
I have no argument with nextjoe's thinking, although possibly it applies even more to bases with tiny screws. It's still correct. However, everything has a cost. The CZ mounts ARE strong, the weight should be welcome in a heavy-recoiling gun, and it's not where it upsets the balance. However, this thread is not controversial enough, so I'll point out that the high mounts make it easier to carry your rifle by the scope, as Alf recommends.
Carry on.
Posts: 2272 | Location: PDR of Massachusetts | Registered: 23 January 2001
quote:Originally posted by Buliwyf: Is there a tendency for the scope to slip forward under heavy recoil if the rings are heavy in weight?
Increased mass of the rings does not increase the force pushing the scope forward IN THE RINGS. The mass of the rings DOES have an effect on the force pushing the rings and scope forward on the rifle. However, the CZ rings have a rather large lug fitting into a recess in the rear bridge. On my rifle it fits quite well. I believe that this more than makes up for the weight. This forum has had all sorts of stories about various mounts failing with .416 Rigby (and other .416's). I don't believe that any of them have been about CZ rings.
[ 02-05-2003, 17:28: Message edited by: Recono ]
Posts: 2272 | Location: PDR of Massachusetts | Registered: 23 January 2001
![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon}
