What are tho opinions on "Leuopld style" bases on a decent recoiling rifle?

If no one wants to comment on my previous post, would anyone like to comment on what they believe to be the best scope mounting system and specifically Talley bases & rings???

Leupold Dual Dove Tail mouuts are excellent & very rugged will hold up with any calaber including heavy mangums.

The Beuhler line of bases and rings are very good,and they are still in business.The new Quadlock system by weaver is nice as well. van

Elmer & others,
What is your opinion of the rear windage adjusting base and ring system.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Elmer & others,
What is your opinion of the rear windage adjusting base and ring system.

I personally have never had a problem with them, but have alway's been told not to use them with heavy magnums.

Terry

Can you define "decent" recoil? Is this as opposed to "indecent" recoil? This might help you get answers to your question.

Hazarding a guess that you're querrying about the ability of a Leupold (Redfield pattern) mount to withstand recoil without damage or POI shift, then yes, PROPERLY INSTALLED Leupold mounts withstand recoil quite nicely.

With the regular type mount, only the front ring is designed to absorb the fore-aft forces, but with its very solid rotating dovetail it is up to the task. The rear ring/base DOES NOT add to recoil resistance and is actally rather delicate; this is the trade you make for having windage adjustments in the base. (HINT: Always install and snug the rear base in its semi-circular grooves prior to mounting the scope in the rings. I've seen dozens of Redfield/Leupold/Burris rear rings that were partially out of the grooves because of misalignment during the scope mounting process.)

With the dual dovetail type mount, you give up windage adjustment but double your fore-aft recoil grip. This is a "belt and suspenders" approach with most calibers because the front ring alone is fully adequate to the task. But with a light rifle and a heavy-recoiling cartridge, it adds to the margin before failure.

All that said, remember that the higher you mount the scope off of the receiver and the heavier the scope, the greater the stress on the mounts. A low-mounted 4x aluminum body scope that weighs 10 ounces won't require nearly the strength of mount as a 50mm objective, 8-25X, two-pound monstrosity the size of an aluminum baseball bat with each end sawed off and a piece of glass placed in the holes.

OK Stonecreek,

Long-Action Kimber 84 in 30-06. Using the Kimber ("LEUPOLD/REDFIELD style")bases. Thinking about going with Talley (only other option I can find for Kimber)rings and bases. Scope is Leupold LPS 30mm 3.5-14X50mm.

I've had windage style bases come loose on three different instances. Twice on a .300 Wby and once on a .340 Wby. So on rifles of that recoil level and above I much prefer a different system. That said, standard windage bases should hold just fine on an aught-six. But if it were mine I would go with the one piece Talley lightwieght set up. Those are pretty darn slick IMO.

Anybody got anything good or bad to say about the Tally base and ring system?

Nothing to say other than they are excellent. Except for a few stragglers all of my rifles now use the Talley screw lock QD rings and their bases. They're a bit more difficult to get set up and mounted the first time you do it but worth it.

Iedvm:
That s real nice scope you have chosen.
I hope your are going to reem the rings on what ever ring & mount system you choose. It would be a crime to leave ring rash marks on that new scope tube.

I don't own a scope ring reemer tool so I use Burris Signature rings with the pivoting plastic inserts to stop ring rash. I mount them using steel Weaver brand mounts on my M70 Win 375H&H.

Remember the strenght of the strongest ring and mount set is still subject to its weakest link. That is in most cases the tiny wee screws that we rely on to hold whole weight of the scope and mounting system on the rifle during recoil.

http://www.burrisoptics.com/welcome.html

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
...Long-Action Kimber 84 in 30-06. Using the Kimber ("LEUPOLD/REDFIELD style")bases. ... Scope is Leupold LPS 30mm 3.5-14X50mm.

Hey Ledvm, The "Redfield Style" Bases work OK on light recoil rifles with small Mass scopes, but they are a poor design.

I'd encourage you to go with either Dual Dovetail or anyones Weaver Style Bases. Then go with Burris "Signature" Rings in their Dual Dovetail or Z-Ring designs. The Signature Series have the Synthetic Inserts.

The Talley design and ALL OTHER non-Signature designs might or might not align properly and create a Stress on the Scope Tube, or hold the scope in mis-alignment with the rifle's Bore. You can occasionally "Lap the Rings" to eliminate the first problem, but the second problem is a real bear. The Signatures resolve both issues.

The higher Mass of the LPS coupled with robust 30-06 Loads (which the Kimber should be able to handle) "might" cause scope slippage in the Redfield Style Mounts. I asked about Pinning them in a recent thread, but have pretty much decided to just trash ALL my Redfield Style Bases. Just a known problem waiting to ruin a Hunt.

Best of luck to you.

I have always worried about the tube slippiing in the ring itself with those insert type rings.

Is that not an issue?

Talley rings are superb rings made by great people.
Their Aluminum are unexcelled on leightweight rifles and at $34.95 retail are an absolute bargain. They make Melvin Forbes rings for him and he uses them on all his rifles including ones with "indecent" recoil.
Their Steel QR rings are one of the few that will actually return to zero. They are extremely strong and hold up on just about any recoil level. Their only disadvantages are that they are made to closer tolerances than most rifle receivers so if your receiver is off they won't line up perfectly. They also tend to leave a pinch mark at the top of scopes. If you like to move scopes from rifle to rifle they may not be the best for you.
I use Talley's on about everything except Sako rifles where I prefer the Optilock's....................DJ

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I have always worried about the tube slippiing in the ring itself with those insert type rings.

Is that not an issue?

Me too - at first.

Try to locate someone near you that has a Set of Signatures mounted on a rifle and look at them up close. And be sure to check out a set that is not mounted.

The Synthetic Inserts provide a more tenacious grip on the Scope Tube than bare steel can and there is no way the Inserts can slip out of the Signature Rings.

They also totally protect the Scope Tubes from the problem that "dj" described - pinch marks - (aka marred/gouged scope tubes) due to the inevitable slight mis-alignment. So, you either Lap them or hold the scope tube in a Twisted Stress condition.

I use the Signatures on some extremely light serious-recoil rifles with high Mass Scopes and have never had a "slippage" or scope damaged by them. Once you use them and understand they are a Design Generation ahead of everything else, it makes you wonder why all the other Ring manufacturers are holding on to their obsolete designs.
---

By the way, I totally agree with dj that Tally Rings are held to very close tolerances. But they can't correct for slight misalignment created by the Tolerance Stacking created by the Base Holes in the Receivers and the Bases themselves. They just are not perfectly made. Using the Signatures compensates and negates those variations.

Best of luck to you.

I can't find any weaver style bases for the new Kimbers. Warne made them but the new ones use 8-40 screws. The Warne weaver bases for the Kimber are for size 6 screws. Also, don't know of any rear dove-tail bases for dual-dove-tail rings. If some one does, would love to hear about it. Was going to go with Talley rings and bases as they are the only other option I can find to the Kimber made "leupold/Redfield style" bases.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
...Was going to go with Talley rings and bases as they are the only other option I can find to the Kimber made "leupold/Redfield style" bases.

That being the situation, I'd also go with the Talley Bases.

Best of luck to you.

Ledvm,

Have the warne base holes enlarged and get #8 screws? If you are going on a big trip, you can have a backup scope in another set of rings all sighted and ready to go. I've used the warne and leupold quick release rings and have seen the return to zero be less than 1/4" off. Neither have ever left so much as a scratch on the tubes. The only down side is the weight. The aluminum talley design can't be beat as far as weight and precision are concerned.

I have a Kimber .204 Ruger indentical to the .308. I did mill the screw holes in the Warne Bases to fit #8 screws for it. Worked fine. The Talley Ring and base system looks very similar to Warne system. Talley makes bases to fit. Was just thinking about trying them instead. Just wanted to make sure that they had a good reputation for holding accuracy 1st.