My hunting partner says he changes has at 5 changes, I never change mine

Don't worry about it, yours will outlast his.

Years ago, I attended a metalsmithing class given by Tom Burgess. To tighten Redfield/ Leupold, etc rings: Remove the top half. put a one inch (or 30mm) piece of round stock on the bottom half. "Squeeze" the assembly in a (old) vise. Tighten as tight as you dare...then use a 5 pound plus inertia transfer device (hammer) and give the moveable jaw a serious "Wham".

You are displacing the male dovetail....does work!

Bill Nittler did the same thing with a loose shotgun frame (squeeze the sides) I can attest this also "works"

Duane I have to say that I am pretty much in agreement with most of your opinions and techniques as far as gunsmithing. Now, let me clarify, that I am not a gunsmith, much less a master craftsman like you, and I am not qualified to pass you tools, but I thankyou for that tip. You are old school gunsmith and do things the way my old gunsmith buddies do.

Hey Tom, Really not happy about having to totally disagree with all the above, but it really depends on how much Recoil your rifle has and how much Mass there is to your Scope.

Here is the problem, the Rear Base on a Redfield Design Scope Mount does not prevent the Scope from moving "Forward" during Recoil. Only the Front Ring has an actual Grip on the Scope.

The Rear Ring will tear through the extremely thin Lateral Adjustment Screws and cause a severe Point-Of-Impact shift. That is the voice of experience using very light-weight, heavy-recoil rifles with large scopes.

The only way to resolve the issue is to trash the Redfield Design Mounts. Use either the excellent design Weaver Style Bases or the Dual Dovetails. Couple them with Burris Signature Rings(with the synthetic Eccentric Inserts) and all the Recoil, scope alignment and scope maring issues are resolved.

I have one set of the old Redfield Design Bases left, mounted on a 223Rem, but I "Pinned" the Rear Ring to the Base, by drilling a hole in the Base and the Ring, then using a piece of Drill Rod for the Pin. I still don't like it and will replace it with the Weavers or Dual Dovetails in the future.

If you choose to use the Redfield Design, it is a potential problem ready to happen at the worst possible moment.

As far as the Dovetails, I lube them with Synthetic Grease and give the Rings a couple of turns before ever mounting the Bases. I swap scopes all the time and have never had a problem with either Dovetails or Weavers.

Best of luck to you.

The front ring of a Redfield-type mount will withstand the recoil of any shoulder-fired caliber sporting caliber that might reasonably be used in North America. But what would I know? I haven't killed "thousands" of deer.

If I understand Tom's question, he is concerned about the wear on the base that results from installing and removing the front turn-in ring. I have noted some bright metal during this process, meaning that there has been some wear, but I've never seen a base worn to the point that it did not securely hold the front ring. Even a ring that turns in somewhat easily is still held quite securely. If both the ring and the base have been subjected to multiple mounts/dismounts, then you might eventually work your way into a problem.

I took it the same way, that is, about removing the scope from the bases. I read somewhere that Redfield's were good for 11 times. Duane's post eliminates that.

I use Leupold QR's for those situations. I don't like to remove the Redfield style rotary dovetail/windage adjustable system, even though it was designed for that. I also don't believe in using miniature versions of the hubble space telescope (i.e. 50mm) on my hunting rifles. I am a 2-7 man with a 3-9 thrown in if it is just too cheap to pass up. 40mm and below with most below for me. But then again, I don't shoot a thousand deer either!

quote:

I also don't believe in using miniature versions of the hubble space telescope (i.e. 50mm) on my hunting rifles. I am a 2-7 man with a 3-9 thrown in if it is just too cheap to pass up. 40mm and below with most below for me. But then again, I don't shoot a thousand deer either!

Like you, I simply can't abide obtrusivly large scopes on an otherwise trim and light hunting rifle. They remind me of the guy in front of me driving to work today in his 1.5 Ton Dodge Dually. He was carrying one 10' 2x6. I'm sure he needed the capacity. Of course, he had probably killed thousands of deer, and I haven't.

I shoot BR so I know better thasn to use them in the first place. When I was younger did not know any better and thought if they wre too tight something was wrong!!

We have an old school gunsmith here where I live who is also a personal friend of mine. He has a Redfield/Leupold one piece base with the famous twist-in front and windage adjustable rear (screws) base in his show case at his shop. I believe the assembly came off a 300Win.Mag. You can rattle the front ring when you hold the mess in your hand. He has told me for years that the Redfield design simply does not have enough contact surface. He also proved it to me when I went and bought new Leupold bases and twist-in/rear-screws rings for a new 270 Win. I had trouble with erattic groups. I took the rifle to him and he put a Bushnell colimator in the muzzle and then put his hand on the front of the scope. the crosshairs moved considerably. We then promptly removed the Leupold bases/rings and installed some good old Weaver bases and rings and that gun now shoots well under 1 MOA at 200 yards for over 17 years. Many people will swear by the Redfield/Leupold design but those same people seem to never use the SAME rifle twice. In other words they don't shoot the same rifles often enough to loosen up the contact surfaces on the Redfield/Leupold bases/rings. Also you will not see many 1000 yard competition shooters much less benchrest shooters use the Leupold/Redfield design. There are some but not many.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
But what would I know? I haven't killed "thousands" of deer. ...

quote:

Originally posted by airgun1:
But then again, I don't shoot a thousand deer either! ...

Once you two Nimrods get a few shots down range, if you use the totally worthless Redfield Design Bases, there is a good chance you will understand my post.

quote:

Many people will swear by the Redfield/Leupold design but those same people seem to never use the SAME rifle twice. In other words they don't shoot the same rifles often enough to loosen up the contact surfaces on the Redfield/Leupold bases/rings..

Well, I've got a .264 Winchester that I purchased new in 1965. It was my only centerfire rifle for many years and I used it to kill whitetails, mule deer, pronghorn, elk, feral hogs, barbado sheep, coyotes, bobcats, skunks, rabid dogs, ground squirrels, badgers, and even rattlesnakes. I've hunted Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Mexico with it. I enjoyed working up loads in it and have used about 15 different bullets and six different powders in it. As a teenager, I would shoot twenty to forty rounds at a sitting at targets. I shot live turkeys at a turkey shoot with it twice. I shot some informal 1,000 yard targets with it in a contest with some buddies. It probably has had three to four thousand rounds down the barrel by now. As you might guess, the first inch of the throat looks like alligator hide and it now requires an extra two grains of powder to achieve the same velocity as when new, but it still shoots under an inch at a hundred, and I never have to adjust the scope from season to season -- just one shot from the bench a week before hunting season confirms that it is still sitting dead on at 12 o'clock, two inches high at a hundred.

Oh, did I forget to mention that it still wears its original Redfield mounts that are now 44 years old?

I used the old Pilkinton (SP) lever mounts on my LH 375 H&H in the early 80,s never had a problem with them. When they showed signs of wear I replaced them. Had a set of Redfield
style slip on my 35 Whelen pump rifle that had
a lot of bench time. I prefer other rings now
but still use them on my small caliber rifles.
If you use Leupold brand Redfield style, Leuopold will replace them if they wear. At leaat they did for me in the past.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Well, I've got a .264 Winchester ...

So,you base your trash talking of my post based on your HUGE Experience base of one, weenie recoil rifle. Very impressive!

If you want to alter it without violence and keep the good looks, alter it like the EAW, slot on the side and screw to take up wear.
Not all have space to do this, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

Many people will swear by the Redfield/Leupold design but those same people seem to never use the SAME rifle twice. In other words they don't shoot the same rifles often enough to loosen up the contact surfaces on the Redfield/Leupold bases/rings..

Well, I've got a .264 Winchester that I purchased new in 1965. It was my only centerfire rifle for many years and I used it to kill whitetails, mule deer, pronghorn, elk, feral hogs, barbado sheep, coyotes, bobcats, skunks, rabid dogs, ground squirrels, badgers, and even rattlesnakes. I've hunted Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Mexico with it. I enjoyed working up loads in it and have used about 15 different bullets and six different powders in it. As a teenager, I would shoot twenty to forty rounds at a sitting at targets. I shot live turkeys at a turkey shoot with it twice. I shot some informal 1,000 yard targets with it in a contest with some buddies. It probably has had three to four thousand rounds down the barrel by now. As you might guess, the first inch of the throat looks like alligator hide and it now requires an extra two grains of powder to achieve the same velocity as when new, but it still shoots under an inch at a hundred, and I never have to adjust the scope from season to season -- just one shot from the bench a week before hunting season confirms that it is still sitting dead on at 12 o'clock, two inches high at a hundred.

Oh, did I forget to mention that it still wears its original Redfield mounts that are now 44 years old?

So what is your point??? You are in the weeds on this one sorry.

I use Refield and Leupold rotary dovetail bases on all of my guns with the exception of two which use Leupold QD's. I have only used Leupold QD's on my big magnums, since they were serious hunting rifles, with the need(perceived need anyway) for iron sights in heavy cover.

I never had a problem with zeros. I shot a pre 64 Win 70 220 Swift in local benchrest competition for 2 years and never had to adjust the base or scope those two years once it was zeroed.

I think proper installation is a key. Proper installation requires some effort due to tolerances of manufacture. Ignoring ill-fitting bases is not going to yield great results. I will say that the rotary dovetail system is sound, but proper installation is a key.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

Many people will swear by the Redfield/Leupold design but those same people seem to never use the SAME rifle twice. In other words they don't shoot the same rifles often enough to loosen up the contact surfaces on the Redfield/Leupold bases/rings..

Well, I've got a .264 Winchester that I purchased new in 1965. It was my only centerfire rifle for many years and I used it to kill whitetails, mule deer, pronghorn, elk, feral hogs, barbado sheep, coyotes, bobcats, skunks, rabid dogs, ground squirrels, badgers, and even rattlesnakes. I've hunted Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Mexico with it. I enjoyed working up loads in it and have used about 15 different bullets and six different powders in it. As a teenager, I would shoot twenty to forty rounds at a sitting at targets. I shot live turkeys at a turkey shoot with it twice. I shot some informal 1,000 yard targets with it in a contest with some buddies. It probably has had three to four thousand rounds down the barrel by now. As you might guess, the first inch of the throat looks like alligator hide and it now requires an extra two grains of powder to achieve the same velocity as when new, but it still shoots under an inch at a hundred, and I never have to adjust the scope from season to season -- just one shot from the bench a week before hunting season confirms that it is still sitting dead on at 12 o'clock, two inches high at a hundred.

Oh, did I forget to mention that it still wears its original Redfield mounts that are now 44 years old?

Sounds like who ever installed your Redfield bases/rings got lucky and gaulded the metal together enough when they twisted it in. Or maybe they had enough sense and tack welded it from the bottom side before they installed it. Hey there's an idea for all of you gunsmiths out there. Whenever a customer comes in and wants Redfield/Leupold bases and rings installed, you just drag out your Lincoln 225 "cracker box" and tack weld the front ring and rear screws after you get the scope lined up with the bore. Then you know for sure it will stay put!LOL!LOL!LOL!

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:
Years ago, I attended a metalsmithing class given by Tom Burgess. To tighten Redfield/ Leupold, etc rings: Remove the top half. put a one inch (or 30mm) piece of round stock on the bottom half. "Squeeze" the assembly in a (old) vise. Tighten as tight as you dare...then use a 5 pound plus inertia transfer device (hammer) and give the moveable jaw a serious "Wham".

You are displacing the male dovetail....does work!

Bill Nittler did the same thing with a loose shotgun frame (squeeze the sides) I can attest this also "works"

I'll keep that method stored in my cranium for future use. Thanks for the share!!!

I think there is a place for these rings and mounts. I have one old Rem 722 in 222 Mag that has something way out of alignment as I can't get a scope zeroed using regular mounts and rings; the scopes run out of windage adjustment before the scope gets zeroed. So, I switched to a Leupold one piece base with the rear screws allowing for windage adjustment in the base, and now have a rifle I can use, with a scope. The rifle is very accurate as is, and I don't want to do anything that will destroy that accuracy. It rates in the high 90's for both metal and wood too.

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Rae59:
Sounds like who ever installed your Redfield bases/rings got lucky and gaulded the metal together enough when they twisted it in. Or maybe they had enough sense and tack welded it from the bottom side before they installed it. Hey there's an idea for all of you gunsmiths out there. Whenever a customer comes in and wants Redfield/Leupold bases and rings installed, you just drag out your Lincoln 225 "cracker box" and tack weld the front ring and rear screws after you get the scope lined up with the bore. Then you know for sure it will stay put!

Of course anyone who's ever done any welding can tell you, the moment you apply heat, what alignment was there is now gone.

quote:

Originally posted by Boss Hoss:

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

Many people will swear by the Redfield/Leupold design but those same people seem to never use the SAME rifle twice. In other words they don't shoot the same rifles often enough to loosen up the contact surfaces on the Redfield/Leupold bases/rings..

Well, I've got a .264 Winchester that I purchased new in 1965. It was my only centerfire rifle for many years and I used it to kill whitetails, mule deer, pronghorn, elk, feral hogs, barbado sheep, coyotes, bobcats, skunks, rabid dogs, ground squirrels, badgers, and even rattlesnakes. I've hunted Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Mexico with it. I enjoyed working up loads in it and have used about 15 different bullets and six different powders in it. As a teenager, I would shoot twenty to forty rounds at a sitting at targets. I shot live turkeys at a turkey shoot with it twice. I shot some informal 1,000 yard targets with it in a contest with some buddies. It probably has had three to four thousand rounds down the barrel by now. As you might guess, the first inch of the throat looks like alligator hide and it now requires an extra two grains of powder to achieve the same velocity as when new, but it still shoots under an inch at a hundred, and I never have to adjust the scope from season to season -- just one shot from the bench a week before hunting season confirms that it is still sitting dead on at 12 o'clock, two inches high at a hundred.

Oh, did I forget to mention that it still wears its original Redfield mounts that are now 44 years old?

So what is your point??? You are in the weeds on this one sorry.

My point is that I own a gun with Redfield mounts that has been "shot more than twice". The allegation was that the mounts won't hold up for long periods and frequent usage. This particular gun (and mounts) is over 40 years old and has in excess of 4,000 rounds through it. I own other examples of much heavier calibers mounted with Redfield mounts, but they are only 15 or 20 years old and have only 1,000 rounds or so through them, so I did not feel it necessary to mention them.

It is perhaps presumptuous, but I'll assume that with this clarification I am no longer "in the weeds".

Pre problem Hot Core mentions can and does happen if the scope slips in the front ring.

Many years ago this type of mount was popular in Australia and course the windage adjustment is the plus and especially when we used the old Pecar scopes with moving reticle. When the mounts were fitted the windage adjustment was used to line the scope up and then the base and rear ring was drilled and tapped and a screw and sweating job was done.

Mark MCGuire- Burris Signature Zee rings (the ones with the eccentric plastic inserts) will do a much better job with mis-aligned screw holes and imperfect bases than the Redfield designed bases and rings.
Where do you guys find the little smiley faces and B.S. flag inserts on this web site?
(SHOOOOOSH Wespac-I was being SARCASTIC about the tack welding)

quote:

Originally posted by Rae59:
(SHOOOOOSH Wespac-I was being SARCASTIC about the tack welding)

Shouldn't that be SHEEEEESH? This is the internet, where anything is possible.