I remember reading somewhere that there should be a correlation between the materials used for mounting a scope to the bases and reciever.

Steel reciever, alloy rings for a steel scope; or steel reciever, alloy bases, steel rings for an alloy scope.

Is this tue and if so, what is the correct coupling?

Nope. The Weaver mount system uses anodized or painted aluminum and they have been on rifles for over half a century with perfect service.

Just recently put a pair of Leupold Rifleman (Walmart) bases and rings on a 300 mag.(They are Aluminum) Was sceptical at first, but have had no trouble with them whatsoever, and they look just as nice as a pair of steel rings.

Put me down as somebody who prefer steel rings and bases...I don't doubt that alloy can work and that they are strong enough, but I find they are that much easier to strip the threads on.

Steel scope, bases and rings. Bases preferably silver soldered to action.

Aluminum will work, but gimme steel any day!!

look at the Talley ring and base system, its all one piece,look great and so far work great. smithson makes the same in steel but at a much higher price. both are very nice.

Gentlemen

I consider aluminium an material that your shouldn't use for gunparts, at all. I would never used it

Aluminium isn't even good for makeing pots and pans

/ JOHAN

Who are Smithson and how do I get ahold of them.

Chuck

If you look at Varmint Al's web sight he has a lot of detail regarding this. In summary he says you should match the scope metal to the receiver or base metal. This is allegedly to minimize any expansion differences between the two metals that might put stress on the scope tube.

That said I just bought a set of the Talley aluminum bases for my Rem Model 7 and absolutley love the look of the ring and bases being one piece. Saving 4 ounces over the Burris steel base and rings was just an added bonus.

Steel Only. I wouldn't have Weavers for free.
Stepchild

Steel only

Chuck, here is Smithson�s page
http://www.smithsonblackburn.com/index.html
/karl

I find it amusing that those that look for good enough, the least expensive route to result X, or so called economy in one aspect of a firearm are adametly apposed to it in others.

Chuck

I have been sporterizing my Mausers with #45 and #46 Weaver mounts that cost $2 Aluminum and $10 in Steel.

I have alway used steel so far, but in the 25 Mausers I am about to sproterize for an accuracy experiment, I am considering Aluminum for cost reasons.

I never buy Aluminum rings [except for 22 rim fire with Weaver or tip off], and pay extra for Weaver Grand Slam or Burris Z rings, or whatever made of steel. The Benchrest guys use Aluminum rings, and I wonder, "if the bench rest guys get away with it, can I?"

--
A society that teaches evolution as fact will breed a generation of atheists that will destroy the society. It is Darwinian.

I personally use only steel, if possible. One big advantage is that you can take the rings/scope off if you want and reuse the same rings. Aluminum "stretches" when you tighten the rings, and "relax" when you take them off. This makes them successively weaker each time. Also, I've stripped alot of screws in Al rings.

I've got Weavers on a .458, and they haven't moved in 18yrs.

I got a Tasco World Class Plus 10x40x50 becuase of what I read at the Varmint Al site.

It lasted 5 trips to the range.

Could it have been the steel rings on Aluminum tube?

Not likely, as it broke while I was adjusting it.

When I twisted the target turrets, I violating one of the rules of cheap scopes:
1) no recoil
2) no moisture
3) no changing adjustments